New York Magazine, which is never afraid to wrap up the lowbrow and sell it as art and vice versa (not that this article applies to that synopsis), has a long, but very thought-provoking article by Amanda Fortini about whether Clinton’s candidacy in the US represents, or has uncovered, the fourth wave of feminism.
I haven’t written much about the presidential campaign here, since this is a site about romance novels and there are few things less romantic in my opinion than the current election campaigns, but since we often deal with women’s issues, and the changing and difficult-to-pin-down definition of “feminism,” I know there are a few folks here who might find it interesting. Feel free to skip this one if such discussions turn you off.
Partially a political analysis and partially an examination of where feminism is, if it’s anywhere, the article made me sit and stare into space for a good few minutes in ponderous thought:
Who wanted to be the statistic-wielding shrew outing every instance of prejudice and injustice? Most women prefer to think of themselves as what Caroline Bird, author of Born Female, has called “the loophole woman”—as the exception. The success of those women is frequently cited as evidence that feminism has met its goals. But too often, the exceptional woman is also the exception that proves the rule.
Indeed, it might be said that the postfeminist outlook was a means of avoiding an unpleasant topic. “They don’t want to have the discussion,” a management consultant who worked at a top firm for nearly a decade told me, referring to her female colleagues. “It’s like, ‘I’m trying to have a level playing field here.’ ” Who wanted to think of gender as a divisive force, as the root of discrimination? Perhaps more relevant, who wanted to view oneself as a victim? Postfeminism was also a form of solipsism: If it’s not happening to me, it’s not happening at all. To those women succeeding in a man’s world, the problems wrought by sexism often seemed to belong to other women. But as our first serious female presidential candidate came under attack, there was a collective revelation: Even if we couldn’t see the proverbial glass ceiling from where we sat, it still existed—and it was not retractable….
It is perhaps cold comfort to say that if she loses the nomination, her candidacy leaves behind a legacy of reawakened feminism—the fourth wave, if you will. But this is in fact what is happening.
The past few months have been like an extended consciousness-raising session, to use a retro phrase that would have once made most of us cringe. We’ve parsed the gender politics of the campaign with other women in the office, at parties, over e-mail, and now we’re starting to parse the gender politics of our lives. This is, admittedly, depressing: How can we be confronting the same issues, all these years later? But it’s also exciting. It feels as if a window has been opened in a stuffy, long-sealed room. There is a thrill at the collective realization. Now the question is, what next?
In my more ambitious moments in writing on this site, I ponder whether romance and the online community of women who read and write it are a microcosm that mimics the larger state of women in the US, one that is representative of the political polarity and diversity of women in this country, only in much, much smaller numbers, which when making sweeping generalizations are easier to approach. The pressure to be nice, the forces that storm the tower to demand change, the number of women-owned and -operated small businesses in competition with established, largely male-run corporation conglomerates, the part where we’re a majority shareholder of the nation’s fiction dollars spent yet sometimes act like a minority afraid of criticism from within our own community, even if that criticism creates needed change, the idea that loyalty is more important than appropriate business conduct… yeah, all of that. So often the deeper thoughts I have on romance novels and the community here online link so neatly and seamlessly into thoughts of the State of Feminism and women in general that I have a hard time separating one from the other.
Political opinions aside, the idea that Clinton’s campaign has uncovered a latent and refueling effort on behalf of women is fascinating. But the best part, for me, was this comment, which stopped a lot of the pounding of “women haters!” drum set and robbed the trolls of their sticks. This comment, it’s like ice cream once you’ve had to eat something good for you that you hate the taste of. Reader SJL33 wrote:
Feminism does not suggest that men are evil or that they hate women. It only suggests, particularly in the 3rd wave (Michel Foucault), that femininity and masculinity are false concepts. They are nothing more than roles created by culture to define and divide, roles we have allowed and perpetuated endlessly.
I do not suggest that men act more like women or that women act more like men. I suggest that there is not any such thing. Just as there is no such thing as a Black person acting White or a White person acting Black. These roles do not exist!They only injure and shame, and I am tired of it.
As a Black woman in college, I see the racial and gender dynamics at work all around me. As a feminist at a time when it is very unpopular I only wish to build up all of the wonderful, beautiful men AND women around me, including myself. We all want the same things, regardless of race or gender. I hope that has not been completely forgotten.
Word. To. That. Person. Like. Merde and Mon Dieu (TM Nathalie Grey)
So – back to romance:
Sexism and RomanceLandia have a long dance-card full of history – are romance novels sexist? the opposite? both? neither? a duck with sheep’s clothing? a pocketful of kryptonite? – but conversely, racism and/in RomanceLandia is debated with shouting or whispers. Debates about romance novels written by or perhaps about black women and where they are shelved in comparison to white romance novels usually end up with much hollering online or use of capslock, or devolve into a complete lack of solution and much offense. The racial and sexual/gendered dynamics of the romance community online (OnRomCom? romcomon? Rom Cum-on? *snerk* sorry.) are vast and deep and twisty as all hell, and I don’t think I can do them justice in one entry.
But I’m curious about what you think. Are we an accurate microcosm, or am I navel gazing to previously uncharted heights of self-indulgence? Which is more of a present and pressing issue, out there or in here, sexism or racism? And has the Unfeasibly Tall Greek Billionaire met his match? Only the shadow knows.
I’m where you are right now. I’m sitting and thinking about this. Sometimes it’s hard for me to view events from the perspective of a 3rd or 4th wave feminist, since I came to feminism a long time ago, back before Title 9 and when it was difficult for a married woman to establish credit in her own name.
We’ve come a long way, but I do not believe the journey is over. It will be ended when we reach the point where a woman running for president is no longer remarkable, and I mean that literally—no one will remark upon it because it will not be worth mentioning.
I’d like to live long enough to see that day.
Oh my gosh, yes. Yes, yes yes. It’s a similar attitude that people have towards romance novels, fanfiction, and reality TV shows. “Oh, that phenomenon exists, but no one like us does or reads or watches that sort of thing. Completely alienating.
That’s why I tell my students that we still need a feminist agenda—because although our culture gives lip service to gender equality, it still dismisses the achievements and the interests of women (individually and collectively). Forms of entertainment that large numbers of men find interesting are socially acceptable; the ones that mainly women are attracted to are second class, silly, a waste of time, you name it.
Yeah, it makes me crazy. It makes me even more crazy when young women shudder at the label “feminist” and don’t believe that the struggle for equality isn’t over. Remember Viriginia Slims, “You’ve come a long way baby”? Translation, “You get to smoke cigarettes just like men, so obviously you have ARRIVED. ” Some of us didn’t buy it then and don’t buy it now.
There are female politicians in positions of power in many countries and yet they are still treated different than male politicians in the media. Just this week, there was an entire press conference dedicated to the cleavage (a very fine cleavage it was, too) of German chancellor Angela Merkel. I do not recall any press conferences ever having been held to discuss the ties or suits worn by Gerhard Schröder or Helmut Kohl.
And as long as there still is gender inequality, there is a need for feminism. Besides, things actually seem to be getting worse again for women. In recent years, there have been a lot of articles and books written (some of them by female researchers) about how the brains of men and women are totally different and how that’s the reason why there cannot be any real gender equality. Ten years ago, anyone who voiced such opinions would have been argued down, now it’s suddenly acceptable.
And speaking from a European perspective, US society seems to be more conservative regarding gender issues anyway, which is why I sometimes find American romance novels hard to relate to. So yes, there definitely is a need for a fourth wave of feminism.
Well, our brains are different, but so are our genitalia. Different doesn’t inherently mean inferior or superior. Or it shouldn’t, but somehow that’s where it seems to end up.
I’m from California; both my senators and my Congressional representative are women, and things are a lot closer to equal here than in some other parts of the US where I have lived. But no, we’re not there yet.
Very interesting article, and one can only hope this leads to another wave of feminism. I’ve been saying this for years- we aren’t close to being equal.
On the other hand, I’m not going to vote for Clinton (or, according to the media, Hilary; the only one to constantly be referred to by her first name, let’s bring her down a peg and make her seem like a little girl playing at the big boy’s table) just because she is a woman.
Personally, I’m not happy with either choice. *sigh* What’s a girl got to do to get some political satisfaction? (I’m already in CA, SonomaLass
)
I think the main problem with that question is you’re asking to choose between two interrelated factors. They both have a whole host of issues, and the ties between them are strong, as is the legacy they both leave separately and together.
In the feminist movements, they have had huge issues with race…and class, for that matter; the first and second wave is known to argue that we need to focus on sexism, we can get to race later, or when Blacks were granted the vote first, arguments like “women can cancel those votes out”, or “we deserve it first” were used. (To name one of many probelsm). There was a reason books like All The Men Are Black, All The Women Are White, But Some of Us are Brave came out. Those issues were still present in the third wave, and will probably be in the fourth (whenever that is).
I think a better focus than which one is worse, or more pressing, is how one can help the other, what we can learn from each, and how we can go about solving/fixing them both, as well as the problems each has created.
And just because I never manage to get all my main thoughts out on the first post, no matter how much I proofread, besides sexism and racism, I wonder how much of a microism we are if we include age, sexual orientation, class, etc, and how these are treated in RomanceLand.
But I should go do homework, so I’ll leave that thoguht just hanging out there. 🙂
*whispers a tiny bit later* and formal education (which is not the same thing as intelligence; there’s many kidns of smarts around)
BTW: new place is beautiful.
Native of a state (Washington) that has a woman governer, and also all our federal Congress & Representatives (except one & we think he’s a eunich)…I just really want to get over all the labels….white, black, male, female, brown, yellow, green, protestants & catholics. Am I a total ostrich to want us all to be Americans together?
do
< g >
not show up here? well, it was for the “i live in CA” comment
Denni: it’s good you want to get over all the labels, but it’s not possible to wipe out centuries of oppression by pretending we all get along, because we don’t and we can’t without a huge amount of collective work, and even then it may not be possible. (‘m obviously the optimistic sort here *g*)
actually, nationalities help set us apart too, so we may want to work on that… 😉
As long as there are women who refuse to knuckle under to a status quo – that is to their detriment while it’s to someone else’s benefit – there will be feminists. They’ll just have different labels.
p.s. sexism is a form of racism.
I love this article! The author has echoed the thoughts I’ve had since the beginning of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It may be that I moved from a more liberal state (Washington) to a more conservative one (Southern California) and that I am currently pursuing a very male-dominated career (directing) but I have been sitting on my hands these last couple years screaming in frustration at how sexism is getting worse and no one seems to notice or care and wondering, is it just my imagination? Am I the only person seeing the disturbing trend? What a relief to find that I’m not insane – or, at least, that if I am insane I’m in good company.
What irritates me is how the sexism towards Hillary seems to be dismissed or pushed under the rug. This is characteristic of all sexism. Unlike most other prejudices (though not to try and diminish their importance) society seems to discourage people from speaking out about sexism, rather than encourage it. When obvious sexism happens, people shrug and say “what can you do?” And anyone who has the gall to speak up against it is labeled as overly sensitive. Society will censure just about any ism – as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with being a woman. I had to deal with loud, sexist boors in my college classes every day, yet had those sexist pigs said one word of prejudice about anything else, professors would have jumped on them.
Did anyone else see that Swiffer commercial, where the woman is running for office against … a mop and bucket? I wrote a letter to Swiffer, I boycott their products, but when I tell my male and female friends to do the same they say, “Why bother? It’s just a commercial. It’s not that big of a deal.” I bother because my mom fought—hard—for women’s rights so that I could have rights and opportunities that she didn’t have, and now I think my generation’s laziness is allowing all that hard work to backslide, so that our own daughters will suffer and pay the consequences.
Oh, and just as a side kind of political note: Please, to anyone still on the fence on who they are voting for, please look up both candidate’s voting records in senate. It will open your eyes.
There’s an excellent book devoted to examining that myth, amongst others. I can’t recommmend it enough.
The Myth of Mars and Venus by Deborah Cameron. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Mars-Venus-Different-Languages/dp/0199214476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208337289&sr=8-1
As a black female, I seem to spend alot of my time and brain power thinking about both. Sometimes I feel its created a sense of paranoia in me that I’m just looking for someone or something that’s being sexist or racist, but in fact a lot of it is just happening and were not saying anything.
Genevieve P. did you ask you teacher why he was supporting sexist attitudes in his class by allow them to behave that way? If not, did you want to avoid confrontation?
A lot of the times I don’t want to do something about it because I want to avoid confrontation? I didn’t make comment when one of my teachers said something racist to me and then followed with something sexist. I cried about it but as my monetary minded friend said to me- does it involve money? (No) Well then don’t worry about it but if you need me to I’ll get my father (member of the NAACP) on it just let me know. I think we like to avoid confrontation because just like Genevieve P.‘s friends weren’t with her on Swiffer, we feel we won’t be wholely supported in our ideas of racism and sexism.
In terms of romanceland, I think that while we’re accomadating for women everywhere, but we’re not accomating for everything. I think in terms of women in romance novels we play with the idea of whats feminine and the role of a woman but rarely in our male heros do we bother with what’s masculine and playing with that. They’re often very carbon copy.
I’ll say the unpopular thing here: I’m not a feminist. Do I think feminism is unnecessary? No. But with the way feminists behave drives more people away from feminism than to it.
Examples, and these are all real:
Feminist friend who tells me I’m a slave to the media and the “masculine gaze” by wearing makeup.
Feminist friend who tells me shaving my legs is an attempt to look prepubescent and for my husband to be attracted to my shaved legs makes him akin to a pedophile.
Feminist who trumpeted the Feminine Mystique at me but who, when I asked how she felt about the homophobic part, had no idea what I was talking about. Must not have read that part.
And with the election: what would feminists say to men who vote for Obama or McCain because they’re men? And yet we’re supposed to vote for Hillary because she’s a woman? How is this right?
Oh, and about calling her “Hillary” – first off, she started it with her own campaign signs. Second, I continue it because most people hear “Clinton” and think of somebody else. Same reason we call the President “W” – not to diminish him, but to make sure we all know who we’re talking about.
Bracing for flames.
Show me a man who is a good loser and I’ll show you a man who is playing
golf with his boss.
Others are able to wait up to 36 hours after taking cialis medication tadalafil a sex counselor, and links to sexual health organizations by CIALIS® (tadalafil) … More ED Info and Support.
Cialis – Warnings & Precautions. Cialis – Clinical Pharmacology. Cialis – Overdosage & Contraindications. Cialis – Indications & Dosage. Cialis The top generic cialis the far East. Cialis info cialis news release Sept
Cialis ® is a prescription medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. … Cialis Info- Cialis News, information and articles. Cialis official
Deciphers the medication tadalafil (Cialis), a drug used for the treatment of impotence. … Cialis Eases Erectile Dysfunction After Spinal Cord Injury
Get all the latest news about Cialis. Latest FDA news and Information. … the company responsible for developing Cialis, made no bones about sharing this .
Get all the latest news about Cialis
Cialis or Tadalafil Citrate is used as a sexual aid in men
CIALIS, and therefore until further information is available, CIALIS is not recommended for the following groups of patients: …
Nanny,
Here is an excellent article on why feminism matters, and what it has to do with Hillary Clinton.
Nanny- Some feminists may be obxnoxious, all causes have at least a few members that other members may not wish were there. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few jerks is overly simplistic.
In the end, what matters more? That some women believe that you shouldn’t wear makeup, or that if you have a man and a woman with comparable levels of education, the woman is on average going to get paid less?
I’m just following up on what Immi said. There’s a discussion of, and links to excerpts of, Deborah Cameron’s book here. I’d definitely recommend reading the excerpts.
Nanny—you’d be happy to give up the vote altogether? You’d be happy to be only able to learn to read if your father agreed to you being educated? These are things that were won by feminists. I like being able to vote, being able to get a mortgage in my own name, and a number of other things besides.
I’m old enough that had I got married a couple of years earlier than I did, I would have had no right of financial privacy from my husband, because until very recently the UK Inland Revenue still treated married women as chattels of their husband. He would have had the right and the duty to see all of my financial affairs, while I would have had no right to see his. This had very practical consequences—a common question in the financial advice columns of women’s magazines was how to save money in such a way that it could be hidden from one’s husband, because it was otherwise impossible for a woman who was considering leaving an abusive husband to accumulate a little money to pay the rent somewhere else, or a woman who was married to a drunk or gambler to keep him from spending all the money on his addiction. Twenty years earlier than that, a woman who left an abusive husband could not claim social security because she was deemed to have deliberately made herself homeless, even if she’d been beaten so badly she’d ended up in intensive care. You think that saying that these were bad things makes me a shrill ballbreaker, or any of the other names used of feminists?
Yes, I’m a feminist. But I don’t tell women that they mustn’t shave, or any of the other examples you give of what anyone who is a feminist does. I just tell women that they have a right to be treated as adult human beings of the same status as men. You’re taking the extremists, and claiming that *all* feminists do that. And it’s a lie. A very big lie.
Security word: respect 24, which seems rather appropriate.
Nancy: It’s great that you posted your thoughts – how are we as a society going to understand what is really going on and how, or if we even need to, get out of it. So in the spirit of comradely consciousness raising…
The question isn’t whether feminists are offputting, but if the basic premise is true. Is it true that women are human beings and deserve to be given the same respect and rights as other, non female human beings? I think that’s a given – we no longer live in an age where the church says that women don’t have souls. However, the underlying ideology that women’s main purpose was to give birth, the property relations that it rests on, and the socially construct of what is “feminine” that flows out of it still exist, and that’s the point of feminism.
It would really require an entire book to get into these questions but I’m going to try to do this “nutshell version.” Women started getting oppressed really only when technology had advanced enough that people started accumulating more “stuff†than they could use in their lifetime and men wanted to make sure that whoever they passed their stuff to was actually their child. Suddenly, it became very important to men who fathered who’s child, and the ideas not only of women as breeders for men but of women and even children as their property came into being. This is seen very clearly in the old testament, for example, on what to do if a man accuses his bride of not being a virgin (“spoiled property” that is supposed to be the basis of more property, ie. children.) If the woman’s parents find proof of her virginity (the infamous bloody sheet) the man is required to pay a fine to the woman’s father, obviously because the he was impugning the father’s property with his accusations (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
And, of course, there’s the infamous 10th commandment which biblical literalist nazi’s like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell and their ilk usually shorten to simply “Thou shall not covet†like the cowards they are. Thou shall not covet what? When you look at the whole passage the ideology these people are upholding, and the relations between men and women it embodies, become clear:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his slaves, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Deuteronomy 20:17)
The problem is that all our society is still burdened with this fundamental view, that women are not viewed as full human beings but as breeders or, more common in these times, as objects for men’s sexual gratification.
The thing with romance novels is that, on the one hand, all of these ideas are so deeply embedded in our culture that even what turns us on, sexually or romantically, is colored by them. At the same time, women, who suffer the effects of the oppression of women, are the overwhelming majority of writers and readers of the genre, so you do get a lot of questions posed about women’s relations with men and attempts made to make women central not only as the characters (which almost never happens in books/movies/tv outside of “female ghettos†like romance) but the women are often kick-ass. So at the same time as we have all of these virgin brides, or virtually virgin brides (even when they’ve been married WTF) we also have characters like Eve from Roberts’ “In Death” series (which, incidentally, has won All About Romance’s reader’s pole for favorite heroine or strongest heroine for just about every poll I looked at).
Romance novels are deeply contradictory in this way, but this is because society, and we ourselves, are as well.
First of all, I will curse you for the startling jolt of French philosophical theorists in my Romancelandia. But how I love these discussions! AND you don’t really have to call yourself a feminist to be one IMO. Labels can be counterproductive, the discussion is the important part.
There are as many different shades of feminism as there are different kinds of women (and men!). It follows, therefore, that they will view Hillary, Romance, and the World depending on their own perception of feminism. The key to the dialectic is to be explicit with yourself, and those you are engaged with, as to where you are situated. I cannot understand, support or argue with you without knowing where you are coming from. But once that is in place, what a lovely discussion it is!!
I will say though that Romancelandia doesn’t have to have anything to do with your theoretical or world view. If anyone thinks less of me as a professional or an intellectual because I read Romance and other fiction, I will assert that they are weak minded and lack imagination.
So there! *sticks out tongue*
Honestly, probably not as much as I should have. Exactly for the reasons you stated, Melissa, because how much time and energy would it take versus the actual? Because there’s always that thought in the back of your head that you misinterpreted it, and that the negative label you’ll earn by pointing it out is worse than in enduring. In film school, your success was directly related to how much your professors’ liked you, because in the final senior project (a fifteen minute film) it was the combined faculty who got to direct or not. From the beginning you were cognizant that you didn’t want to make enemies or stick out as a negative influence.
My freshman year, 2003, there was a round robin, where all students told what they wanted to do. It was weird, because while most males were saying they wanted to direct, all of the females before me gave less prominent jobs: editing, production design, etc. It came to be my turn and I said, “I want to direct.” The teacher said: “You know, it’s really hard to direct and have a family at the same time.” I pointed out that a number of successful directors did, in fact, have families.
“Well, that’s not quite what I mean. I mean, they don’t get to spend time with their families, and they have to have their wives take care of their children…” Then, when I called him out on his sexism, he said I was misinterpreting the comment, that it had been geared at everyone, males included, because there were so many of us who wanted to be directors and he wanted to point out the drawbacks. So, was he just oblivious or really sexist? And if other teachers like him, and you file a complaint, are they going to be angry at you for impugning his good name?
In my business classes (I double majored) the idea was that this was a part of business you had to accept and tough out and learn to deal with. I was told as much by a female professor. These were the classes I mentioned with the sexist boors.
Good article and good conversation! I am a lifelong feminist. While I am not a fan of Hillary, I am appalled at the overt, unashamed misogynism shown by conservatives. Sexist! These people are showing a deep, underlying hatred for women. This is nothing new.
I think Nanny’s attitude is why feminism isn’t stronger in this country. I am a feminist. I wear makeup, shave my legs (every darn day), and read romance novels. So do a lot of other feminists. Yet feminism has the same image problem as does liberalism. We have passiviely let others define what feminism supposedly means. For me, feminism means each person regardless of their gender should have the freedom to live to his or her full potential.
Do you remember the uproar over Hillary’s cleavage? Here is the article that started the uproar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html
I thought that it was a thoughtful and intelligent article. The same author wrote an article on how Cheney’s choice of a casual jacket for meeting a foreign dignitary showed his lack of respect. I think clothing is highly political.
All feminist do not agree. I think that it is important to have the discussions.
As others have already said, you can’t say all feminists are this or that or think such-and-such. I’m a feminist and don’t wear make-up and I don’t shave my legs. But I used to wear make-up all the time and I don’t now just because I don’t have a lot of time in the morning and I simply don’t worry about whether or someone else thinks I should be wearing it. And I don’t shave my legs because I’m blind as a bat without my glasses and you can’t wear them in the shower—consequently, I can’t actually see the hair on my legs too well unless I bend myself like a pretzel or shave by sense of touch or shave while standing on one leg like a stork with the other leg in the sink. Since my husband really doesn’t care one way or the other, I only shave if I will have to wear something that actually shows my legs. I do shave under my arms, though, because I can’t stand to have even stubble there. Obviously, I’m at this site, so I read romances (and most everything else) and I like a great many romantic comedies.
I think, like the word “liberal”, we’ve allowed the opposition to define the word, “feminist”. I started college when I was 29 and had to explain to much younger fellow classmen that I was “a liberal since before it became a dirty word and a feminist from before it became femi-nazi”. I then had to explain that, as a liberal, I don’t care who or how you worship as long as you don’t expect me to join in and I don’t care who or how you have sex as long as everyone is a consenting adult. Live by the rules that make you happy as long as you don’t infringe on my or anyone else’s right to do the same. As a feminist, I think that women should have as much right as any man to succeed or fail according to their abilities, talents, desires, and work ethnic. Women should have the right to complete autonomy over their reproduction, their sexuality, and their finances. In other words, they should be treated as adults, not perpetual children who must be guided with a firm, masculine hand. Unless, of course, she wants to treated like that. In which case, see my definition of “liberal”.
@Tina C.: To shave in a shower with glasses, stand to the side and close the door/curtain. Turn the water on low and stick your legs under, getting them wet. Turn off water. Open curtain/door for more room (I like to put the foot of the leg I’m shaving on the ledge). Lather up and shave! Take off glasses, close curtain/door, shower.
As for feminists who don’t shave: I wish even men would shave some. Shaving your legs helps to remove dead skin. Shaving your armpits gets rid of the hair that traps odor and sweat. It’s not about looking “pre-pubescent;” it’s hygenic. (Okay, so I don’t know of benefits for a Brazilian wax. I do use Nair on my bikini line because I prefer to not have pubic hair showing.)
I agree with many things said in this conversation, but I wanted to briefly address the topic of male and female brains being different. They are, but you can have a masculinized woman or a feminized man. It depends on the hormones present in the amniotic fluid while you were gestating. High amount of testosterone v. high amount of progesterone/estrogen. Do I think we need to treat people differently because of this? No. But it is not a myth that male and female brains are different. (Now, some people interpret the difference in strange and mythical ways.)
Confirmation word: consider24. Finally I get one that fits the discussion.
I am appalled at the overt, unashamed misogynism shown by conservatives.
I’ve seen plenty of it coming from the Left too.
Whatever genre I’m reading, I tend to identify with the female character and prefer female leads. However, I’ve noticed from reading reviews and discussions here that heroines tend to be held to much higher standards of behavior than heroes and disliked much more often. I’m not sure if it this is about the difficulty of writing good heroines or about allowable behaviors for men an women, or a general preference for reading about men in romance as opposed to women.
Papercut, I heart your brain *so* hard.
Feminism seeps into my writing, and influences my approach to the characters – of any sexes – in the stories I’m working on. I can’t get away from it, because I ama human being who’s viewed and treated differently all because of my body’s parts.
Echoing what others have said, we shouldn’t let certain “killjoy” feminists, who are more preoccupied with fighting pornography, the beauty cult and the fact that the stick figures on traffic signs are not 50% female (yes, I had that discussion at university) than actual inequality, define feminism for the rest of us.
As for holding heroines to a higher standard than heroes, that is something I have not only noticed in romanceland but in popular culture in general. Overwhelmingly female readers/viewers complain all the time about female characters being promiscuous or committing infidelity, while letting the same things slide in male characters. That’s probably why we have so many duke of sluts paired with virgin heroines.
And since we had Hilary Clinton’s cleavage, here is Angela Merkel’s.
Anti-spam word speak66: Yeah, we should speak up like it’s 1966.
First, I appreciate the fact that (most) of you guys listened to what I had to say without simply knee-jerking. That’s why I like coming by here.
Absolutely, it’s true that no single feminists’ words can be taken to represent all feminists. I totally agree about stopping FGM and letting women in third-world countries go to school and access to contraceptives and all that good stuff. But “feminist…” that’s just not what it means to me anymore. It means that everything is about “the patriarchy” keeping you down, that men are the enemy, and that women who like men are the enemy, and men and women who don’t agree with you are the enemy. And I just don’t have time to have that many enemies!
I know this isn’t what you guys feel feminism means. But you have to ask yourselves: why do I, and a lot of people like me, feel this way? Papercut said that the question isn’t if feminists are offputting, but I think it is. It doesn’t matter how great your message is – nobody wants to hear it that way. I think radical feminists love making their points so much that they never consider if making the point was the most effective thing to do. Whether you’re a man or a woman, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Shouting at men and telling them they’re oppressive and the patriarchy… nobody wants to hear that! They’re not going to want to listen to you and take your side, they’re going to go home and say “Stupid crazy feminists.” Radical feminists are creating the same enemy they complain about!
Like Jules Jones upthread, who both said she wasn’t an extremist and then told me that if I don’t like today’s radical feminists, I must want to give up the vote and not go to school. Basically, calling me stupid. Does that make me want to agree with her? No, and I don’t. Today’s feminists didn’t get me those things. My great-grandmother did. She was a suffragette. A hundred some years ago, Republicans were the party of Lincoln. Does voting Democrat mean that I want slavery back?
But I do believe in a lot of good feminist causes, even if I don’t like the way feminism is going these days. So I try to do something small on my own. Every year at Christmas I give some money to Heifer Project, where they buy farm animals mostly for women in foreign countries. I put a little money for a woman shop owner on Kiva.org. It was a much better use of my $25 than picketing materials.
Since we had Hillary Clinton’s cleavage and Angela Merkel’s, here’s Nicolas Sarkozy with no shirt on. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/5967 Oh, and Vladmir Putin. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/22/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-Putins-Image.php It happens to all politicians, not just the women.
Thanks for that. And maybe you could focus on that idea when one of your feminist friends is on another tear? That, or hang with folks who don’t bug you so much.
I *love* this:
The girl who obeys all the rules [whether they’re right or wrong] not only misses out on all the fun, neither is she likely to make history – or effect any much needed change.
Hmm…well, as a black woman, I don’t have the liberty of separating the two. Which is why I don’t associate myself with the mainstream feminist movement. Regarding the romance genre, I can say that despite my love for it, it plays into the games of the mainstream feminist movement in that it’s mainly created for the promotion of the white woman and women of color need to be female first, ethnicity last—which is why discussions of race, culture and ethnicity hardly ever garner as much of a response as topics concerning sex or outsiders criticizing the genre…
I simply have not met any of these radical feminists you’re finding so offensive, who go on and on about the patriarchy. The closest I have ever come was meeting a woman so brave that when a man jeered at her rudely in the street, she’d fight back and tell him off or even spit on him. Is that radical feminism? Or just sticking up for herself? Is sticking up for oneself the definition of feminism?
I also haven’t met conservatives who tell me that I should be wearing makeup or taking my husband’s last name, and I’ve been living in redneck, evangelical bastions for the past 20 years. Maybe they just don’t talk to me and I just don’t give a damn, but usually, relations are cordial. I do know that I’ve suffered hiring discrimination at the hands of women who wear a lot of makeup, though. And probably at the hands of men who’d rather hire the blonde bimbo. Even so, it isn’t about makeup or leg shaving and it never was. It’s about fair access to opportunity. It’s about power, and nobody gives that up lightly.
For years, I read romance manuscript submissions in which the heroes sneered at any sign of feminism from the heroine who was trying to make a place for herself in a previously all-male field. And the heroines always denied being feminists, always. But yet they wanted equal opportunity and equal pay. And respect. Still, they did not have the courage to say so directly by associating themselves visibly with “women’s libbers” (pejorative term) who supposedly wanted to burn bras and overturn thousands of years of (lousy) male-dominated civilization. Women by and large still lack the courage. But then again, most people of either sex lack the courage to disturb the status quo. It is the unusual person who dares.
In recent years, what I see is this bigger divide than ever between women who deliberately set out to win the Barbie contest—go on American Idol, be a model, or become low-paid grade school teachers and medical assistants and do girly crafts, anything not to rock the boat with their insecure men—and women who aspire to something different. It bothers me that all the polls and studies show that women are still being judged most unfairly, that we are caught in a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” trap. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a poster girl for this situation. Oh, she’s not a paragon. But she gets blamed for everything she has done and also has not done. It’s an impossible position and the logic of her critics is extremely tangled. I give her credit for doing her best to ignore the worst of it and to address what she can. And to try to finally get her turn, to fulfill all the promise she sublimated into Bill’s career for so many years. Will she make the best president? Who knows? Is my generational fellow feeling for her a good reason to vote for her? I don’t know.
Meanwhile, regardless of what they call themselves, many women are attempting to achieve on the basis of merit, not on looks or compliant behavior. Yet many women choose the other path. They think they will get by (or do better) with their skillfully-applied makeup, with being sexy, or special, or whatever. These different approaches to achieving power leave women vulnerable to divide-and-conquer tactics by our enemies. Unfortunately, there is so much hostility to women having power, even just over ourselves, that we always have enemies.
No wonder I read romances and insist on happy endings.
The word that comes to my mind is “spectrum.” In any group of people with a core shared belief, you will find a range of devotion, with extremes at the ends. True of feminists? Absolutely! True of SF Giants’ fans? You bet! True of evangelical Christians, or progressive Democrats, or advocates of gay rights, or members of Alcoholics Anonymous, or members of the NRA, or women who think Colin Firth is hawt, or … well, you get my point. Judging the whole group, and the core value, on the basis of the fringe, does a disservice. More, it means you might miss a chance to know people with whom you might really get along well.
One piece of US History Trivia that always comes to mind when wondering about the old racism/sexism complexity: who was the first woman candidate for US president? Victoria Woodhull, nominated by the Equal Rights Party in 1872. Who did they nominate as her running mate? Frederick Douglass.
spamword: final68—aw, one short!
…women who deliberately set out to win the Barbie contest—go on American Idol, be a model, or become low-paid grade school teachers and medical assistants and do girly crafts, anything not to rock the boat with their insecure men…
I consider myself a true feminist—I have the right to be treated the same as a man in the workplace, and if I’m not, I speak up. It doesn’t always do me any good, but I do. I also have the right to crochet if I love to make afghans (which I do) and to teach school if I love children, to prefer the hands-on care of nursing rather than the pressured distance of being a doctor, and to write romance rather than drive the combine (which, by the way, my husband would be thrilled if I did). These choices don’t demean or undermine women any more than a man choosing to go on American Idol, or be a model or nurse or teacher, demeans or undermines men.
We can’t all be vocal feminist leaders, standing in front of TV cameras burning our bras or whatever today’s popular symbolism is. Most of us just have to do what we can in our own small ways to advance the cause, such as teaching our sons to do the things that their fathers didn’t—things like cooking and laundry. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that because we don’t do feminism the way you would, we’re doing it wrong.
Nanny: I wanted to clarify what I meant when I mentioned Clinton being called “Hillary”. It’s not the campaign posters I’m thinking of (plenty of politicians do that), it’s the media- the coverage on her- that I am referring to. When I read political articles/blogs, the majority (definitely not all, but the majority) refer to her as Hillary. Considering she has other titles- Senator Clinton, for one- and considering the context of the name should make it clear, I just find it telling that they refer to her as Hillary. They do not call him Barack unless it’s Barack Obama. (I’m sure there are incidences when they do, but again, the majority of the work). Maybe this is all in my head, but it seems like another in a long line of small or seemingly insignificant things that are used to bring her down a peg. (On this issue, I watched the political ‘debate’ between the two of them tonight, and I found it interesting that she called him “Barrack” and he referred to her- at least once- as “Senator Clinton”).
I can’t speak about the ‘W’ thing just because I called him other, less polite names, and sometimes I really did see it as a joke on him. (I suppose it depends on who and how the nickname is being used). And just on the political line, I did say I don’t believe you should vote for Clinton because she is a woman. Bush had a very diverse cabinet(s), but I don’t want to see him in power again.
I love this line Robin! While I do think we need a lot more vocal feminists, I agree that small changes really do happen at the base level, and that there’s a lot of ways, meanings, and shades to being a feminist, including what you call yourself.
century69: the time when the nanobots have sex.
Nanny: I agree with you. I’m one of those women who doesn’t call herself a “feminist” because the basic underlying principle—that female persons are deserving of the same rights and respect as male persons—is not what that word means to me anymore. I really like what you said here:
I feel that the term “feminist” has been co-opted by the more radical branches of the movement, with which I vehemently disagree and with whom I do not wish to be associated in any way, shape, or form.
I call myself a “people-ist” instead, somewhat facetiously, when pressed. It explains what I believe (that everyone is equal, has certain unalienable rights, and is deserving of respect) without associating myself with ideas I don’t support. It also dodges the binary gender assumptions I feel are inherent in the word “feminist”.
I keep being told that modern “feminism” is about a woman’s right to make her own choices and to have her decisions about herself be respected. Please respect my decision to not label myself a “feminist.” I’m a people-ist.
I think that everyone should be allowed to define themselves. People-ist works. I call myself a feminist and a liberal. I called myself a liberal at democratic caucus. Someone cracked a joke about me using the L word. All smart liberals now call themselves “progressives.” I am just not willing to let others hijack what it means to be a liberal or a feminist.
I don’t think that you can be a liberal extremist. For me, any form of extremism goes contrary to being liberal.
Likewise, any form of sexism goes against feminism. Treating women as brain washed children who need guidance by more aware “feminist” is the most insidious form of sexism.
Radical feminists, which I consider myself to be, believe that patriarichal subjugation of women to be the root cause of most if not all oppression. Most believe that pornography to be harmful and exploitive of women. Studies have shown that most sex workers enter the field around the age of 14-15 and generally come from an abusive background. Radfems’ anger is not at the women but at the men who use them.
Obviously, different individuals hold different individual beliefs. The feminists I know don’t care if you wear makeup, but the makeup industry is based on making women insecure. My mom wore makeup to have her liver biopsied. She couldn’t conceive of leaving the house, no matter the reason, without makeup. It’s an appearance standard for women that is not applied to men. Analyzing the choices you make and the surrounding culture that governs those choices isn’t a bad thing.
If calling men out on their crap is going to make them not like me, then that’s ok. Feminists tend to not subscribe to the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality that is used to excuse so much behavior. Feminists expect men to know how to act. I’m not here to cater to people who can’t internalize a baseline of decent behavior. I’ve seen men expect kudos for not raping a woman even though she was passed out drunk on their couch. That’s like me saying I deserve a cookie because I didn’t rob a bank even though I could have gotten away with it.
Suffragists were harassed, spat on, assaulted, and jailed by men who didn’t want to give them basic rights.