How did you become a Feminist?

[KarenAM]

That I think is a bit too much. To talk about The Patriarchy is like talking about The Environment. We have it all around us, all over the world, but we all deal with it locally.

Are you calling me paranoid?

I'm not qualified to diagnose you (or anyone else) as paranoid, Svenskaflika, and I apologize if I have given offense. But the words "The Patriarchy" are clearly singular, and I simply don't see a single, monolithic patriarchy running the world the way The Environment covers the world, and I think that too many feminists have taken to using the idea of "The Patriarchy" to justify counterproductive rage against all men.

There is no single patriarchy; there are many patriarchies, each of which is a unique cultural insititution which deals with gender differently, as all cultures do. To argue that all patriarchy is alike and that all emancipation of women must take on the same form (i.e. that of western Europe and the United States) has led many feminists to patronize and misunderstand women who are struggling to deal with very different problems and who desire very different things than western feminists. Who are we to say we know more about emancipation than they?

This is why I'm bothered by "The Patriarchy". It's become yet another catch-word for those feminists who see feminism as a way to impose their ideology on the rest of us, whether we like it or not, and it puts all men into the category of enemy (since, according the the radicals' argument, all men benefit from "The Patriarchy", something not true in any actual patriarchy).

Do I have problems with certain features of patriarchal societies? You bet. Do I believe that they are all one and the same and should be referred to in the singular? No. Reality is more complex than that.

 

[sweetnpetite]

off topic

SnP,

I didn't know that. Um, maybe a silly question. But how do you keep tabs on a family tree, you know, lineage stuff and all that?

I know we weren't allowed to see our family tree when we were kids, because, well, some kids were bastards in the legal sense. We weren't supposed to find that out.

Simple. In my country, we have no sence of history or extended family. sad but true

If one wanted to do the family tree thing, one would have the names of the parents listed on the birthrecords to go by. MY ancesters who came from Ireland had such ordinary names, I would it would be difficult to place them as well. (Thomas and John!!!)

 

[sweetnpetite]

The worst manifestation of the worst kinds of feminism, IMO, are the devaluation of motherhood and the raising of children. Not only do some women criticize other women for making their families their pride and their life's work, but some men use corrupted feminist ideas as an excuse not to face their own responsibilities as fathers and partners. Human beings were not meant to bring up the next generation in solitary confinement. Parents have to sacrifice autonomy and individual freedoms to do their duty by their offspring, and that applies to both sexes. A feminist man does not tell his pregnant sex partner, "Well, just get an abortion or something," and then if she refuses, desert her and her child because women are allowed to be "independent" in this enlightened age.

MM

Amen to that.

I am an unapologetic feminist.

As well as an unapologetic unwed stay-at-home mom.

Hell, what I was on assistance- I was unapologetic about that too. It's *my* place to decide what my family needs, not anybody else. And my family needed me.

You might also guess that I'm an unapologetic liberal.

(but of course, us liberals, we have no shame!)

 

[ABSTRUSE]

My grandmother was Cherokee, and they have a very strong, matrilineal culture. Women aren't less, or better, just different than men, and as such, are valued just as much.

On a side note, while helping my son with his homework on Indian tribes from our area, I was surprised to find that in, I believe it was the Algonquins, that the women in the tribe were the ones who elected the chiefs.
~A~

 

[cloudy]

On a side note, while helping my son with his homework on Indian tribes from our area, I was surprised to find that in, I believe it was the Algonquins, that the women in the tribe were the ones who elected the chiefs.
~A~

There are many tribes like that, Abs, more than most people realize. In many, there wasn't a "chief", per se, but a "head woman," and the title was passed down through the mother's line.

Other tribes, the children weren't raised by their fathers but by their mother's brother, and thus raised by their "family."

 

[raphy]

The sexes are different, but fundamentally we are all members of the same race. We cannot be identical and all function identically, and our inevitable differences should be celebrated.

I think that's the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread yet.

Am I a feminist? I don't know. It's a label. Do I love and value women? Absolutely. Do I believe that a woman's place is in the home? Not at all, a woman's place is where she wants to be.

But someone's got to stay home and look after the kids.

I'm going to give you a man's perspective on that.

Now, your average man has been brought up to think that going out and providing for his family is *his* job, *his* responsibility. That's an ethos and an ethic that dates all the way back to prehistoric times when men were the hunters and the gatherers and they did go out and provide meat and food for their family.

No, that has no relevance in today's world - You had to be strong and fast and tough to bring home the dinner in 8000 B.C. and you don't have to be any of those things in 2004.

But 10,000 years of ingrained socio-programming is pretty hard to change. A lot of men view themselves as failures if they aren't the breadwinners in the family. They view themselves as 'half men'. What kind of man is it that can't support his family? God knows, the only thing that is keeping my own self-worth from falling through the floor during this period right now where whisp is supporting both of us is the fact that I am not out of work because I'm a lazy slackass or a loser or a failure - I'm out of work because my work permit hasn't come through yet. I hold onto that with every shred of my being and say to myself "If I *could* work, then I damn well would be working". Men joke about having a sugar momma and being a 'kept man', but in truth, not very many men actually want it. Men want to be men and provide for their families.

So sure, if you want to go out and work, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But don't be surprised when your man is reluctant to stay at home and not earn a crust. Let him continue to work and keep his self-esteem and hire a nanny.

And if you want men to stop feeling like they need to be the providers for the family, which is an attitude you're going to have to erase if you want them to be happy and content with staying at home, then you're going to have to round up all the women who like the image of big, strong, providing, protective men and take them out the back and shoot them.

 

[Guest]

I think that's the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread yet.

Can you see the arrogance, dismissiveness and vanity of this sentence?

Perdita

 

[minsue]

And if you want men to stop feeling like they need to be the providers for the family, which is an attitude you're going to have to erase if you want them to be happy and content with staying at home, then you're going to have to round up all the women who like the image of big, strong, providing, protective men and take them out the back and shoot them.

Don't think that hasn't crossed my mind.

I'm truly lucky. The last relationship I was in before my husband ended not long after a discussion revealed that I would be expected to stay at home if we have kids. (The phrase "no wife of mine..." was used more than once. ) The explanation was that he felt there was never ANY reason for a child to be in daycare so someone would have to stay home and he couldn't accept the concept of not being the breadwinner. My husband, on the other hand, has told me multiple times that I should feel free to make enough money that he no longer has to work. Such a sweet sacrifice he is willing to make for me.

 

[cloudy]

Raphy makes a good point.

I'm quite capable of earning my own living, but stay home with kids at the moment. It was a decision my husband and I made together. Sometimes I honestly feel I'm wasting all that education I worked so hard to get, but then I consider my children to be more important than anything.

And, although my husband has offered to be the one to stay home, I don't think he would be truly happy doing that. He's been raised to see a man as not being a man unless he is providing for his family.

 

[Guest]

I think that's the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread yet.

Am I a feminist? I don't know. It's a label. Do I love and value women? Absolutely. Do I believe that a woman's place is in the home? Not at all, a woman's place is where she wants to be.

But someone's got to stay home and look after the kids.

I'm going to give you a man's perspective on that.

Now, your average man has been brought up to think that going out and providing for his family is *his* job, *his* responsibility. That's an ethos and an ethic that dates all the way back to prehistoric times when men were the hunters and the gatherers and they did go out and provide meat and food for their family.

No, that has no relevance in today's world - You had to be strong and fast and tough to bring home the dinner in 8000 B.C. and you don't have to be any of those things in 2004.

But 10,000 years of ingrained socio-programming is pretty hard to change. A lot of men view themselves as failures if they aren't the breadwinners in the family. They view themselves as 'half men'. What kind of man is it that can't support his family? God knows, the only thing that is keeping my own self-worth from falling through the floor during this period right now where whisp is supporting both of us is the fact that I am not out of work because I'm a lazy slackass or a loser or a failure - I'm out of work because my work permit hasn't come through yet. I hold onto that with every shred of my being and say to myself "If I *could* work, then I damn well would be working". Men joke about having a sugar momma and being a 'kept man', but in truth, not very many men actually want it. Men want to be men and provide for their families.

So sure, if you want to go out and work, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But don't be surprised when your man is reluctant to stay at home and not earn a crust. Let him continue to work and keep his self-esteem and hire a nanny.

And if you want men to stop feeling like they need to be the providers for the family, which is an attitude you're going to have to erase if you want them to be happy and content with staying at home, then you're going to have to round up all the women who like the image of big, strong, providing, protective men and take them out the back and shoot them.

And, I'd be one of those women. Anyone care to shoot me?

I have never thought of myself as a feminist. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Perhaps I am the epitome of feminism. I have only ever seen myself as an equal, nothing more, nothing less. I've always been that way. I have a huge respect and admiration for men, and I do believe they have for me, in return.

I also have a huge respect and admiration for women. But, I do have to admit, I often find men easier to understand than other women. That probably sounds a bit odd, but I know what makes a man tick, and greatly appreciate that, because that's also what makes me tick.

One thing that I cannot abide is the "Battle of the Sexes". What's that all about? Women should have equality and respect, yes, but they shouldn't be after superiority and attempt to achieve that by the belittling of men.

I don't go out to work. Apart from a couple of little part time evening jobs, I haven't since I left a full time job to go on maternity leave, when I was 34 weeks pregnant with my first child. That was my choice, and my husband was happy to go along with that.

I'm expecting to be jumped on now, but I am confident enough in myself to know that I have achieved my own personal equality, without even trying. It's all about being in partnership and being smart - working together to achieve a common goal.

If anyone regards me as a doormat and traitor to womanhood, so be it. I know different.

Lou

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Lou, I think you are unique. ~A~

 

[cloudy]

For what it's worth, Lou, I completely agree with you.

Not less, not better, not even really "equal", if you think about it. Just different.

I love the differences, personally!

 

[raphy]

A quote from Ashleigh Brilliant.

"There are no major differences between men and women, but the minor ones keep being rediscovered with great enthusiasm"

 

[Madame Manga]

IAnd if you want men to stop feeling like they need to be the providers for the family, which is an attitude you're going to have to erase if you want them to be happy and content with staying at home, then you're going to have to round up all the women who like the image of big, strong, providing, protective men and take them out the back and shoot them.

Each time I became pregnant, I was the only one of the pair of us with a job. Therefore, I took a three month maternity leave after the baby was born (for those outside the USA or under a certain age, 90 days is the maximum time my employer had to hold my job for me) and went back to work full-time. That was how I was the best mother I could be under the circumstances; I earned a wage and pumped milk in the bathroom. My husband didn't really enjoy the isolation--rather like many stay-at-home moms--but as far as I can tell, his balls didn't shrivel up and fall off either.

He can change a diaper, do a load of wash or dishes, wipe a runny little nose and clean up spilled milk. And he can pick me up and sling me on the bed and--well, I'll leave the rest to your fertile imaginations. Sure, I'm a better cook than he is, and I see filth and mess where he sees nothing to bother him, but I can trust him with every aspect of our domestic situation. Just as my housekeeping has nothing to do with my femininity, his has nothing to do with his masculinity.

IMO, "providing" isn't commuting to an office or chucking spears at giraffes. There are jobs to be done in a marriage or other long-term living relationship, and as long as they get done, it's not relevant who does them. My husband takes care of his family to the best of his ability; he is my definition of a real man, and I try to let him know it. Probably not often enough--I need to remember to make time for the bed-slinging part.

MM

 

[minsue]

Lou, I don't regard you as a doormat and certainly not as a traitor to womanhood for the simple fact that you listed it as your choice. Those that bother me, male and female alike, are those who believe it is your duty and obligation to stay at home and who feel that a man should have to earn more money than a woman. That's not fair to either sex. My husband is patiently waiting for me to earn enough money so that he doesn't have to work. That's fine by me. Of course, I'm patiently waiting for him to earn enough money so that I don't have to work. So far, it's a very slow race.

 

[cantdog]

This is a lot better

Not butting in,I hope?

I graduated high school in America in 1970, and I saw feminism go through some of its changes. Gender roles are less of a difficulty now, I think. Manhood has had the stuffing kicked out of it, but it was a long overdue thing, in my view.

My dad's "manhood" or maybe, amongst porn authors, I should substitute "masculinity", was a pretty sickening sort of compound of wearing the pants and a bunch of other bizarre ideas. That sort of masculinity is not yet dead, but ought to be.

I began interacting successfully with women around fifteen years of age, which would have been around 1969 or so (I graduated at sixteen.) I was much more of a feminist than any of the women I knew then. Radical feminists I had to encounter at college, but the ones I knew in high school were pretty shallow. Scratch 'em, by which I mean, challenge the lip service they gave to feminist ideas by placing them in a real situation, and they reverted pretty quickly.

But I was the one who made my future wife believe in her independence and autonomy, who asked her what she thought and felt when she had already decided to await my decision. I certainly learned none of it from books, nor (even more certainly) from my dad or mom. I have been pondering as I read this rambling discussion: what the hell, you know, just what was it, anyway?

But I think it was an internally derived decision. It came about at the same time as I lost my better-dead list and abandoned holding grudges. I believe I sort of outgrew my earlier ideas and would up in an egalitarian space.

Gender roles are still in flux. Part of it is that masculinity is essentially a performance. The things you count on, as it were, from a man are things he does. A person can be feminine by existing, but a person cannot be masculine exept in his deeds. I work for a Baptist pastor, a woman, who is having an unusual amount of shit from her supposed colleagues in the Baptist preacher biz.

They took her money and let her sit in the classes at the seminary. She got ordained, installed , called, and all that jive. But most of the rest of them are not just men, but men in their sixties and fifties. Hell, some of them totter in on canes, and use the 21st century equivalent of eartrumpets. She can't get simple acceptance and acknowledgement . She constantly needs to establish her standing before they will deal with her.

I debrief her about these things because I am sympathetic and have no axe to grind in the matter. She's bright, she's quite empathic about the pain people undergo, she's in her late forties and thus worldly and experienced enough to have a bit of wisdom to offer. These things make her too good a pastor to be wasting her time trying to make some kind of point about feminism. But the obstructionist dinosaurs in the denomination make her feel the wall they put up and tempt her to spend a little time kicking it to make it fall, when she would be better using her time to simply be the good pastor she is and let 'em all shadowbox for lack of an opponent.

Most workplaces do not still have this sort of overt sexism, but these gents quote Scripture to justify their idiotic ideas and get away with it. It's very annoying and distracting, but the worst of them are like seventy-something years old and will be easy to simply outlive.

 

[Belegon]

A lot of the idiocy in this world we will have to outlive to eliminate. Those of us with children also have to responsibility of making extra sure that we are part of the solution, not of the problem. I hope I am doing that well.

I would have to count myself as a man who would find it a little difficult to play the Mr. Mom role for more than perhaps a year. I think I could do it that long. Then the old attitudes and self esteem issues would start creeping up. Now, if both of us could stay home, no issues at all.

Mind you, that is all about me, not her. I know it is old fashioned, but I just think it is how I would react.

 

[cantdog]

Mr Mom

My kid always knew there was no Mr Mom. It was her dad that she had to deal with.

Not working sucks, but I don't find it sucks because of some gender role expectation issue. It just sucks as an experience. I don't like it because of the futility and boredom. Even though we got by just fine without the income as long as it lasted.

When my wife wasn't working she wasn't very happy either. And yet her mother left the workforce the day she got married, and never semed to feel any heartache about it.

 

[Black Tulip]

It's nice to see guys contributing to this thread as well.

I like to add something to my earlier contribution. Just as it is ok for women to prefer being a mum at home, it is ok for men to prefer working outside the home.

The main issue was about having a choice. What choice you make is entirely up to you, as long as it is a choice and it doesn't automatically forces the partner, male or female, into an unwanted role.

That's what I got against modern radical feminists, they deny men any choice at all.

 

[raphy]

Re: This is a lot better

Cantdog - About your post..

I had to read this a few times before I fully understood the 'meaning between the lines', so to speak .. And I'm still not sure whether I've got it right.

What, however, I'm taking from what you said above is that one of the reasons that women have such a hard time rubbing shoulders with male colleagues in the workplace is because of the way masculinity and femininity are defined.

A person can be feminine by existing, but a person cannot be masculine exept in his deeds

That's the statement that I foud most interesting and I'm certainly not about to dispute it. I haven't given it enough thought yet, but I definitely like the sound of it.

From a lot of even non-radical feminists - I'm talking here about people like, for example, Lou - People who wouldn't necessarily call themselves feminists, but have managed to carve out a lifestyle that gives them equality (in the workplace, at home, in social situations) - From women like that (and obviously from radical feminists too) you often hear the line:

"You have to be better than a man to get the respect of men [in the workplace]. You have to beat them at their own game."

What you mentioned above about how masculinity defines itself got me to thinking about that statement.

Women aren't used to defining themselves by doing. Men, however are. Men have been playing the one-upmanship game ever since the first caveman came back and said, "My club is bigger than your club"

My point (I do have one) is that when women say the line about having to be better than a man, it's often said with bitterness, as if it shouldn't have to be that way.

The thing is, men play that game every day. To us, it's a part of life. It's a part of who we are. When we go into the work place, we get ourselves into that mindset, and most of us don't even realize that we're doing it. It's just natural for us. It's the testosterone-induced feeling of competitiveness. And it's my theory that women aren't used to living surrounded by that feeling of competitiveness, and they resent it, without knowing why.

Of course, I could be talking out of my ass - But it sounded good to me when I was working through it in my head.

 

[raphy]

It's nice to see guys contributing to this thread as well.

I like to add something to my earlier contribution. Just as it is ok for women to prefer being a mum at home, it is ok for men to prefer working outside the home.

The main issue was about having a choice. What choice you make is entirely up to you, as long as it is a choice and it doesn't automatically forces the partner, male or female, into an unwanted role.

That's what I got against modern radical feminists, they deny men any choice at all.

Radical anythings are always a bad idea. I'm all for moderation, me. Unfortunately, often the quiet whisper of moderation gets lost amid the storm of radical ravings.

 

[rgraham666]

Radical anythings are always a bad idea. I'm all for moderation, me. Unfortunately, often the quiet whisper of moderation gets lost amid the storm of radical ravings.

Many people prefer radicalism because when you're radical you don't have to think.

Moderation is a constant struggle, sorting through myriad facts, thoughts and feeling. And it never stops.

Radicalism sets the world into an nice, neat little package where things will be perfect forever if everyone just shuts up and does what they're told.

 

[Black Tulip]

Re: Re: This is a lot better

...

The thing is, men play that game every day. To us, it's a part of life. It's a part of who we are. When we go into the work place, we get ourselves into that mindset, and most of us don't even realize that we're doing it. It's just natural for us. It's the testosterone-induced feeling of competitiveness. And it's my theory that women aren't used to living surrounded by that feeling of competitiveness, and they resent it, without knowing why.

Of course, I could be talking out of my ass - But it sounded good to me when I was working through it in my head.

Raphy,

Maybe some women resent it. I can only speak for myself and I don't resent the competitiveness as such, but the thoughts that come with it. I was taught to be not competitive, because: it's not feminine. Nice girls do not want to be the best and most certainly not want to be better than an man. And if you did anyway, you would certainly be left over, a.k.a. stay unmarried. For your information: that was the ultimate prove of failure.

Guess what? I stayed unmarried.

I hope I have matured enough by now to know better, but reading something like your statement above still makes me boiling mad. Women of my generation , at least in Western Europe, were brainwashed into avoiding competition.

From your words I assume you are honestly trying to figure it out. It's just that things like this push all my wrong buttons.

*stomping off to kick some really deserving ass*

 

[cantdog]

Moderation shouldn't be a goal, though. Positions or beliefs look moderate in one time period (Well, of course our dark brothers can't govern themselves, but we owe it to a higher being to be humane to them-- this was moderate only a century ago, despite the facts. Haiti was the second oldest independent country in the Americas and the third republic, in the Enlightenment sense, the modern republic, the third in the world, after France and the US. And had been run by black people, ex-slaves at that, right from the first. Haiti chose the republican option with deliberation, for itself. In 1805. Two centuries ago, and you can still count truly successful slave rebellions on your fingers, taking all of history into account. And I count Pitcairn Island. Slave owning America didn't want to talk about it, let alone celebrate it. That sentiment about the incapacity or the dark brother was moderate mainstream thought in 1905.) will look pretty extreme in another time period.

The forces which mutate a moderate position over time are called radical every time. But the ideas mustn't be judged by how radical or how moderate they are, which is relative, and fleeting, and unimportant to their discussion.

Separation of church and state was a radical notion, but three hundred years of religious wars and the grue of hundreds of slaughtered ancestors in those wars called out for a way to remove the heat from that debate.

Any challenge to the idea, whether you see the idea as moderate or not, is a call for more massacre of Huguenots, more inquisitions, more hundred-year wars against infidels and heretics. The idea needed to be looked at on its merits, not compared to whatever prevailing idiocy was in place.

"Moderation in all things," the portion of Stoic thought we remember now, is not particularly brilliant or profound, especially in a political context. Wiser if you are talking about how much wine to drink.

 

[cantdog]

And your thing about competitiveness will get you in a lot of hot soup, dude. I believe competitiveness is the rule in dog packs, wolf packs, baboon troops and other such arrangements, but we are not in a baboon troop, we are in a republic, a workplace, a household. None of these is supposed to be a baboon troop, where snarling and tearing at one another with fangs determines how things are done. Competitiveness is the law of the jungle, maybe. Co-operation is the law of civilization.

Admittedly, civilization is a new idea. But it beats the heck out of bullying for the sake of getting the chicks, as a way to live. Suppress your animal nature a bit for the sake of living in a society with a little chance for the weak to receive redress when they are despoiled by the strong. That's better. Making a mystical ideal out of the competitive spirit (It made our country great!) is asinine. It make our ape ancestors have a shitty time in their bestial societies, and it does the same for ours, where we let it run its course unchecked by reason.

And it's no more male than female. The impulse is as universal as the instinct of the animals we still are. Being civilized and acting rational isn't a department of the feminine, it's a responsibility of anyone who plans to have a tolerable society in which to raise children.