Feminism, Feminists (Spin Off on Sadie/Kaya Thread)

[Ariadne]

How funny, one person tries to tell me it has nothing to do with feminism and now someone else is defending it as just fine. :lol:

Why shouldn't they? Staying at home to raise a family/keep house is work, hard work, right? Why is a man who chooses to stay at home while his wife works outside the home - she might like working, some women do - so vile yet a woman who says exactly those same things a victim of the mean feminists?

Except that is not what I am speaking of. This isn't a case of a man who would rather stay at home and raise the kids and a woman who would rather go to work, the mothers want to be home with their kids. Their husbands just don't see the point in bothering to work and their wives are pressured into going and getting a job instead.

As for equal pay. You are very lucky; you have a husband who is willing to let you stay at home and who supports you financially.

:lol: Wow, "let me". Isn't that the sort of phrases that are supposed to be erased by this "liberation"? He doesn't "let me". We have a partnership and we have BOTH decided that this is what I will do. In fact because I wanted to stay home and raise my kids I looked for a man who would feel the same way. "Let me!" :lol:

In my experience people want to know when women are going back to work because most people cannot afford their lifestyle with only one income. I don't know anybody in a marriage-type deal where that is not an economic necessity long-term. It's not about not valuing at-home parentood.

Yeah, I hear that but I also hear from the people I know that do it that economically it's really about priorities. What is more important to you, the money or the family? In my experience (again here in the US) the desire to know is based on a social assumption that a woman "belongs" in the workforce or they aren't "working". It's just as bad as saying they "belong" in the kitchen only in reverse.






I will say I am becoming curious about the feminist movements in the UK and New Zealand now. It could be an interesting study to see the differences.

 

[Zumarrad]

Their husbands just don't see the point in bothering to work and their wives are pressured into going and getting a job instead.

Why do they stay with these men then?

let me lol

That's right, if it wasn't for the feminist movements that's exactly what he *would* be doing.

Curiously, a friend of mine was married to a man in the US who would not "let" her work and whose entire social milieu was centred around the expectation that women *must not work outside the home*. So I suspect it's not purely a US thing, rather a where you live/your social group thing.

Both of my parents come from very poor backgrounds and my grandmothers did not work because they wanted a swanky or even middle class lifestyle, it was because they had kids to feed. Ditto my grandfathers. Not wealthy people, it was just what you did.

But I understand that you dislike feminism and that is OK. I do suggest that you read a bit about it (Wikipedia of all things has quite a good overview of the various kinds of feminism) so you can come to understand that it's not a black/white simplistic one-way thing.

It's great that you have the choice to stay at home. Not all women do, and that's got nothing to do with who they married or didn't marry.

 

[Ariadne]

Why do they stay with these men then?

In some cases I wonder... and I was friends with their husbands!

That's right, if it wasn't for the feminist movements that's exactly what he *would* be doing.

As I said before I come from a long line of well educated and respected women, we have always "chosen" for ourselves long before feminism was a glimmer in someone's eye. They would never have married a man that would "let them" (or not) do anything and neither would I. We did not need "feminism" to rescue us. I do recognize that not everyone was that fortunate but you shouldn't assume that no one was.

So I suspect it's not purely a US thing, rather a where you live/your social group thing.

Maybe not "purely US" but I have family who now live all over the entire North American Continent and it has been found pretty much everywhere. My family is mostly middle class perhaps there is a different expectation in some upper class societies? Perhaps your friend ran into a regional or business subculture? (Have I ever mentioned that my mother came from a very large family?)

Both of my parents come from very poor backgrounds and my grandmothers did not work because they wanted a swanky or even middle class lifestyle, it was because they had kids to feed. Ditto my grandfathers. Not wealthy people, it was just what you did.

And my grandmother worked dang hard on their farm/ranch too. I hear you and agree but most of the people I know making that choice do not qualify under that description. The choice isn't do they eat it is "can we afford a second car and a (fill in the latest tech toy)?"

However in the last few years I have been running into something new. With this pushing back to make staying at home acceptable again I see women who are 5-10-15 years older then me who were pressured into the work force when their children were growing who are very sensitive about the subject. Discussions come up about the sacrifices being made by the women who are staying home now in spite of any pressure and they say, "I wish I could have done that." The wistfulness is almost painful.

So maybe things are improving for the better. I hope so.

But I understand that you dislike feminism and that is OK.

But do you have any clue why? We are all formed by our personal experiences and I have yet to have a good one where popular feminism is concerned.




Honestly, there was just an extensive discussion on how the ideals of sexual liberation has changed from having a "choice" to be expected to sleep with any man that comes along, from "can" to "should". Why is it so hard to believe that there could be a place where the "choice" to join the workforce has turned into a similar expectation and social pressure?



Ah well, believe me or don't, it doesn't change things either way. I've said my piece and really what is there left to be said? Anytime the idea of choice and agency is replaced with "should" and disdain for anyone who doesn't there is a problem.

 

[karena]

Because these idea's originate from people who identify themselves as being feminist leaders in the US. Perhaps "feminism" means something else in other countries, if so I am happy to hear it, that is merely what I and my family have experienced. The feminist movement in the US has been very antagonistic to anyone who wishes to follow a more "traditional" lifestyle.

So the people who say these things don't identify as feminists? As in at a local level, where people attack individuals saying they should be at work, do they identify as feminists?

I'd recommend a book called Backlash by Susan Faludi. It talks (amongst other things) about how feminist messages get used against the movement. Things can be twisted by an unsympathetic media.

This is why I asked the question, as pretty much every feminist I have ever met is very very careful to lay blame at the door of the system that makes people feel the need to act in a certain way, not the people themselves. In the structure/agency stuff, its pretty much one of the defining characteristics. So for there to be a bunch of feminists going round and preaching to individual women that they should be at work would seem an odd direction to take. For the media, politicians et al (in a very broad sense) to take notion of the right to work, and convert it to the duty to work, not so hard to understand.

I didn't say that they espoused the points in my second paragraph either only that they have been a consequence I have seen of this attitude of a woman only having value if she works in the public sector. Trust me I am not making this up. The amount of pressure I have run into for a woman to be in the workforce no matter what can be intense at times. Someone I know has a baby and the first question they are asked is "how soon before you return to work". A couple decides to have children and she steps down from her job and hears "that must be so hard for you, such a personal sacrifice." A friends child starts school and the first question is "so what kind of job are you going to be looking for." It's never "what do you want to do" but an assumption that they WILL work and if they don't... it. is. constant. Fortunately I have thick skin where it comes to someone else telling me what they think I should do with my life.


As I said before I have a great deal of respect for the Suffragette movement. Many of the Feminist leaders in the US, not so much.

I absolutely believe you and I know you're not making this up. Where we differ is that I don't lay the blame at the door of feminism. I too hear this kind of discourse all the time. The one place I can be certain on *not* hearing it is with feminists. Everywhere else, the workplace, the pub, dance class, the media etc, absolutely.

How funny, one person tries to tell me it has nothing to do with feminism and now someone else is defending it as just fine.

Where did I say this? I agree with Zumarrad that a father should absolutely be able to stay at home and look after his kids, that more should so it, that is should become normalised, and I see a bit part of the solution to this lying just there.

My interpretation of what you wrote was that men laze around at home and rely on their female partner to bring home the money. I saw no talk of taking on domestic work. That is what I was referring to.

But in more general response, as people have mentioned feminism is diverse. So people could very well disagree within it, and frequently do. That's what politics is.

I would say with any of this stuff don't accept at face value how things are represented. Like with bellydance, if we just believed the general discourse and popular public opinion we would have a very different idea of what BD is. If we looked at the original clip that started this thread without any other knowledge, we might think that bellydance is all about sex, a bad influence etc etc etc. All the things that have been the subject of this thread are about misrepresentation of something we hold dear, and the impact this has on us as dancers, and the way the general public see us, and why oh why won't people look beyond this and see the dance for what it is! We also spend great amounts of time discussing why this misrepresentation happens, sexualisation, orientalism etc etc etc. I would just say this all applies elsewhere too, like in the way feminism is dealt with.

 

[Ariadne]

Well, I went and read up on the different feminisms and it's history as recomended... and didn't really learn anything I didn't already know other then some specific names.

Then I went and looked up some quotes from Gloria Steinem (the person practically idolized in the US feminist movement) and I found;

"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."

"Unless we include a job as part of every citizen's right to autonomy and personal fulfillment, women will continue to be vulnerable to someone else's idea of what need is."
​

Yeeaaahhh... It's not to hard to see where the POV I mentioned might come from.


I had heard from more then one source that the feminist movement was more "militant" in the US then other places. If that means that these "ideals" have been taken to an excessive level to the exclusion of other options... well then I can believe it, I've seen it after all. Nor do I believe it is a misrepresentation of (a type of) feminism in this case.

Oh, and the feminists I have talked to in the US, the ones who call themselves feminists (to answer your question), think I am out of my mind for wanting to stay home with my children. According to them I am... well there is no need to stir that hornets nest lets just say it's quite insulting. Fortunately I happen to find it amusing if not a little sad.

I find it quite interesting as well that not a single person from the US has come out to say that I am wrong. (Watch it happen now. :lol



hmmmmm.... NOW without any additional points I don't see how there is anything more to be said. :lol: Really, is there anything left that hasn't been said? Well on my part anyway? This reminds me of different discussions I have had concerning prejudice. Far to often people don't see it until they experience it for themselves. :think:

I suppose in a way I may have just attacked something that means a great deal to those of you that responded. If so I apologize for any hurt feelings.

Love...

 

[Sita]

Well, I went and read up on the different feminisms and it's history as recomended... and didn't really learn anything I didn't already know other then some specific names.

Then I went and looked up some quotes from Gloria Steinem (the person practically idolized in the US feminist movement) and I found;

"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."

"Unless we include a job as part of every citizen's right to autonomy and personal fulfillment, women will continue to be vulnerable to someone else's idea of what need is."
​

Yeeaaahhh... It's not to hard to see where the POV I mentioned might come from.


I had heard from more then one source that the feminist movement was more "militant" in the US then other places. If that means that these "ideals" have been taken to an excessive level to the exclusion of other options... well then I can believe it, I've seen it after all. Nor do I believe it is a misrepresentation of (a type of) feminism in this case.

Oh, and the feminists I have talked to in the US, the ones who call themselves feminists (to answer your question), think I am out of my mind for wanting to stay home with my children. According to them I am... well there is no need to stir that hornets nest lets just say it's quite insulting. Fortunately I happen to find it amusing if not a little sad.

I find it quite interesting as well that not a single person from the US has come out to say that I am wrong. (Watch it happen now. :lol



hmmmmm.... NOW without any additional points I don't see how there is anything more to be said. :lol: Really, is there anything left that hasn't been said? Well on my part anyway? This reminds me of different discussions I have had concerning prejudice. Far to often people don't see it until they experience it for themselves. :think:

I suppose in a way I may have just attacked something that means a great deal to those of you that responded. If so I apologize for any hurt feelings.

Love...

I don't think U upset anyone in fact I think U enriched the debate and conversation for everyone.
Feminism is an ideology and movement and is therefore one in continual flux and reassessment. The reason for so many movements within it, is because other 'groups' found the mainstream thought at that time failed to respond and reflect their reality or position at that time.

for example I was reading about the symbolic meaning of the house in literature and it was commented on that some feminist critics saw the house as a place of oppression due to the historical role of woman as provider, mother etc. However at the same time bell hooks pointed out that as a black woman her house was a place of sanctuary from the racist society 'outside'. While these points differ neither takes an anti-feminist stance - they just follow the individuals experience and background. bell hooks for example pointed out that the 'mainstream movement' at that time failed to properly take into account the voices of minority groups.


Womanism is another obvious example drawn from the work of Alica Walker (it's the easiest one to find info on): WOMANIST THEOLOGY

“Womanist theology challenges all oppressive forces impeding black women's struggle for survival and for the development of a positive, productive quality of life conducive to women’s and the family’s freedom and well-being. Womanist theology opposes all oppression based on race, sex, class, sexual preference, physical ability, and caste” (67). (I borrowed and cut this quickly from wiki)
This form also appealed to the African writer Mariama Ba who disliked the term 'feminism'. Although some non-African and African- American women use that term to describe their position and another form connected to that is 'Motherism'.
All forms which would disagree with the scholar U quoted.


Personally I'm drawn to the so called French feminists - Julia Kristeva and Helene Cixous as well as Chicana feminist and Borderland theorist Gloria Anzaldúa. They suit my views on things and deal with the issues I'm concerned about, their work is not perfect however and many other feminists would take issue with some of their points, but I see that as a positive; as no one should follow blindly without questioning.

The people U and your family have encountered would be referred to as perhaps a little dated by some people I know (although perhaps that's unfair - not knowing those people personally) or just stuck on one particular aspect of the movement and have failed to keep up with some of the other developments in the movement.

Also I think that it should be acknowledged that there is no reason why a man can't be a 'feminist'. In fact many men were active in the struggle - Keir Hardy fought for women s rights and was an influence on the Suffragettes (particularly on Sylvia Pankhurst) and another Labour politician stood down from his seat, so that he could be re-elected under the banner of a woman's right to vote. In Egypt Qasim Amin is normally mention in association with woman's rights there and there are others.

Debate is great and I think it is sad that those people judged you and tried to impose their views onto you (and your family) rather than just starting a respectful dialogue about the different ways you viewed life and being a woman. That to me would be much more productive.

Sita

 

[Zumarrad]

Steinem was writing in the 60s when women whose jobs were outside the home were derided and, actually, married women were discriminated against in the workforce. Times have changed just a little in 40 years, though I accept that parts of the US can be a little backward.

Many feminists consider childrearing to BE a job. Certainly, with respect, I think I have possibly known more feminists, of a wider age range, than you perhaps have, Ariadne (since I am for a start considerably older than you), and while I do know of lesbian feminists who derided conventional expressions of femininity, ie skirts and makeup, in the early 80s, I have never yet met a feminist who felt it was wrong that a woman stay home to look after her children.

I don't actually appreciate having the privilege card waved here. I am well aware of my high degree of privilege compared to many women of the world, but you're basically saying all the rights women have worked so hard to gain in the past decades have turned me and people like me into an oppressor of you, an equally privileged and by the sounds of things economically far more advantaged woman than myself, purely because feminists made it possible for some women to work outside the home without major disadvantage.

I am sorry you have been treated badly by women and I accept that feminist discourse has contributed to the notion that women should work, but if the unthinkable happened and you were to find yourself on your own, I think you might change your mind a little about the value of being able to vote, own property, earn a living wage, receive state support when needed and so on.

 

[Amanda (was Aziyade)]

Steinem was writing in the 60s when women whose jobs were outside the home were derided and, actually, married women were discriminated against in the workforce. Times have changed just a little in 40 years, though I accept that parts of the US can be a little backward.

Oh yes, this exactly! My extended family members were almost all military after the 1940s, and the women were often treated with a great deal of scorn because they weren't at home raising children.

My own mother wanted to be a doctor, but as she told me "That just wasn't an option then," so she joined the Navy and studied nursing. You didn't see women CEOs or women executives like you do now. The OPTION of having not so much a job as a career -- it just wasn't available then, and that's what Steinem railed against.

There is NOTHING wrong with being a stay-home mother. It's a perfectly valid option. For but a long period in the US, apart from teaching or nursing, that was the ONLY option. And when it's your ONLY option, you get a little antsy about what else is out there. And you write about it and rail against it.

 

[Ariadne]

Womanism is another obvious example drawn from the work of Alica Walker (it's the easiest one to find info on): WOMANIST THEOLOGY

“Womanist theology challenges all oppressive forces impeding black women's struggle for survival and for the development of a positive, productive quality of life conducive to women’s and the family’s freedom and well-being. Womanist theology opposes all oppression based on race, sex, class, sexual preference, physical ability, and caste” (67). (I borrowed and cut this quickly from wiki)
This form also appealed to the African writer Mariama Ba who disliked the term 'feminism'. Although some non-African and African- American women use that term to describe their position and another form connected to that is 'Motherism'.
All forms which would disagree with the scholar U quoted.

Thank you so much. I went and looked up additional references and I found it fascinating especially considering the research I have been doing recently on ancient Egyptian history and the ceremonial role of the "mother/wife/daughter" figure in history and religion. The description of "Womanism" and "Motherism" seemed a natural progression of that and also seems very similar to the beliefs held in my family (male and female) for nearly 2 centuries now if not longer. I guess it just goes to show that any time you have a social group that places value on the contributions of both woman and men to society rather than marginalizing one or the other you will get a similar outcome.

(I found this article especially interesting, http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~ecas2009/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1568&Itemid=24 and would love your opinion. )

Debate is great and I think it is sad that those people judged you and tried to impose their views onto you (and your family) rather than just starting a respectful dialogue about the different ways you viewed life and being a woman. That to me would be much more productive.

Sita

I agree it is sad but I find it helps to keep a sense of humor about the entire thing. (Not that some people appreciate my laughing at it. oh well.) I do wish it would be possible to discuss more openly but it is such a sensitive subject it seems like someone always ends up being offended. As a result I usually avoid discussing it at all unless it is someone I know but every once in a while it will come up in a way that the different points can be mentioned. Even then it's like tip toeing through a minefield. Without those times though I would not know that it isn't just my own family or of women who were pressured into conforming to this expectation.

There is NOTHING wrong with being a stay-home mother. It's a perfectly valid option. For but a long period in the US, apart from teaching or nursing, that was the ONLY option. And when it's your ONLY option, you get a little antsy about what else is out there. And you write about it and rail against it.

Oh I understand and agree with you there, a strong belief in equality is very important to a stable society.

Unfortunately there is often the tendency to overcome inequality by becoming that which is being railed against or by reacting in excess to the perceived restrictions. This can include a feeling that the "other" must be punished by being placed in a subservient position themselves, yet the hypocrisy of this is left unmentioned.

One does not become "equal" by changing who you are or by denying others only by having equal opportunities. Someone choosing different opportunities does not actually negate your own choices but there are always those who feel threatened by anyone who does not conform to their own experiences or beliefs about how things "should" be.

I hope that wasn't hopelessly vague. I guess my point in total is that it is possible to support equal civil rights and suffrage but not agree with popular views on feminism. When looking for the quotes from Gloria Steinem I stumbled on another quote from a feminist leader (not sure who) about how it is impossible to be equal from a pedestal. Exact meaning and context aside I would ask if it is better to then create equality by lifting both up to the top or by jumping/tearing down and creating a society of the lowest common denominator? So many of the points I find in feminism seem to chase after the second rather then the first.

 

[da Sage]

Ariadne -

I'm a feminist too. I admit to having spoken less than positively about the possibility of me staying home with the (theoretical) kids, mostly because I don't think I'd be very good at it. And I've encouraged a friend of mine to look at formal job options, because frankly, she doesn't seem to be that good at (or happy about) being a stay-at-home mom (even though she likes the idea of being a stay-at-home mom).

Generally I approve of parents of either gender staying home to be with the kids, as long as it's a joint/family choice, they do it "right", and they aren't trying to avoid the work of a formal job. Doing it right means taking time to play with the kids and do housework, not shunting the kid off to watch TV while Parent plays on the internet for hours on end (and then Parent wonders why the 5-year-old kid doesn't have the number and color vocabulary she needs for kindergarten...the problem is not that the kid is learning-disabled, it's that she's neglected - real story about one of my former co-workers who is now a stay-at-home mom)!

I know that I'd be a much better mom if I got some "adult-world" work time in to balance my family-world responsibilities. Other women don't need that break, but I do.

 

[Jane]

My kind of feminism is having the same opportunities and legal rights as men. It's all about having the choice of what I *want* to do and not being told what I am allowed to do. We are all people and deserve equal treatment.

I spent four years, 1990-1994, in the Marine Corps during the first Gulf War. My first husband was also in the Marine Corps, but got out to stay home with our daughter (who is on this list) and go to college. When I got out, I was the stay at home mom and homemaker. I was surprised at how many women felt the need to comment on it; implying that I was either lazy or being oppressed. It was my choice and I will testify that being a full time parent and homemaker is much harder than being a Marine!

Now I say I'm a trophy wife and a belly dancer. I admit to having an odd sense of humor at times.

 

[Ariadne]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I love your sense of humor Jane!

Ariadne -

I'm a feminist too. I admit to having spoken less than positively about the possibility of me staying home with the (theoretical) kids, mostly because I don't think I'd be very good at it. And I've encouraged a friend of mine to look at formal job options, because frankly, she doesn't seem to be that good at (or happy about) being a stay-at-home mom (even though she likes the idea of being a stay-at-home mom).

That is of course only a call you can make but why would you encourage your friend to give up if it's something she wants? If it was reversed, if it was a friend who was not used to a formal job and was not very good at (or happy about) it would you tell them to just quit, or would you help them to accomplish their goal and find ways to improve and get better?

I know that I'd be a much better mom if I got some "adult-world" work time in to balance my family-world responsibilities. Other women don't need that break, but I do.

I don't know any that don't da Sage. A formal job is just not the only way to find that adult time and some need more then others.

 

[da Sage]

That is of course only a call you can make but why would you encourage your friend to give up if it's something she wants? If it was reversed, if it was a friend who was not used to a formal job and was not very good at (or happy about) it would you tell them to just quit, or would you help them to accomplish their goal and find ways to improve and get better?

My friend gets kind of sad and cranky with no adult companionship. She really gets starved for adult interaction, and her kids are getting to the point that they don't need someone at home all day long 'cause they're in school. I really think my friend would be happier if she spent 20-30 hours a week working with other adults - then she could come home and enjoy spending time with the kids and her husband. Now she goes out at night whenever possible to get her "adult interaction fix", and she's actually spending less time with the kids than you might think (for a stay-at-home mom). She's actually a very good mom in many ways, but I think she could use more structure, and she's not always good at imposing structure on herself (or the kids). If she found a formal job that she could succeed in (supporting and supported by the workplace structure), I think that she would have more personal reserves to structure her personal/family life so that she'd be happier. As it is, she's structuring her own life 24/7...and in a weird way, that means she never gets a break.

If my friend was not used to or not very good at a formal job, I would encourage them to look at other options...either getting better at their job, or finding a better job. If they were well-off enough (and the job fit were really bad), I *might* encourage them to just quit - especially if there were children in the picture that they wanted to spend more time with.

A formal job is just not the only way to find that adult time and some need more then others.

Of course not...I've often thought that if I won the lottery I would need to continue to work, if not for pay then with some sort of structured volunteering. Other people would never work again, and never miss working.

My former next-door neighbor didn't work for about 25 years. She did some volunteer work, but even if she weren't volunteering, I'm sure she'd happily fill her time doing other things. I've never thought she should "go get a job"...because she doesn't NEED one. But some people really DO need a job...because it's a big part of what makes them happy.

 

[Sita]

Thank you so much. I went and looked up additional references and I found it fascinating especially considering the research I have been doing recently on ancient Egyptian history and the ceremonial role of the "mother/wife/daughter" figure in history and religion. The description of "Womanism" and "Motherism" seemed a natural progression of that and also seems very similar to the beliefs held in my family (male and female) for nearly 2 centuries now if not longer. I guess it just goes to show that any time you have a social group that places value on the contributions of both woman and men to society rather than marginalizing one or the other you will get a similar outcome.

(I found this article especially interesting, http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~ecas2009/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1568&Itemid=24 and would love your opinion. )

Hi, sorry for the late reply, I am glad my post helped in your resaerch You prolly already know this but I thought you might like to see it anyway as it's in line with your research interests:

my family are big fans of John Romer. There's also the Berber queen Tin Hinan.

The article gives a good introduction to the issues and some of the major figures: Flora Nwapa, Buchi Emecheta and Mariama Ba. There are some things though I wanted to add. In this issue the terms 'African' and 'Africa' are not very helpful as the continant is so vast and diverse. Even in a country like Nigeria you have so many different cultures. The reason I mention it is that a lot of these writers draw on cultural traditions when finding their 'voice' in gender politics, however the particular traditions will depend on the culture - Buchi Emecheta is Ibo, Mariama Ba was Senegalese and Muslim. I just wanted to point that out as the article fails to emphasise that a lot of 'Third World Feminism' like this draws/take inspiration from cultural traditions that already existed to futher their cause - Islamic feminism does the same. Also these cultures tend to have a more collective perspective or idenity rather than the individualism that dominates 'Western' thought and philosophy.

His article perhaps could have also discussed more the issues of the discourse in relation to feminism and colonialism or the condition of 'double colonialism' that these women face. You could find more info on any Postcolonial Reader (they should have a section on feminism and postcolonialism or gender).

Please feel free to pm me for further discussion or questions - I'm very keen on this topic.

love
Sita

 

[Sita]

For anyone interested here is a link to information on 'Chicana Feminism' Making Face, Making Soul:
A Chicana Feminist Homepage


love
Sita

 

[shiradotnet]

I find it quite interesting as well that not a single person from the US has come out to say that I am wrong. (Watch it happen now.

I have spent little to no time on the dance forums over the last month due to being horribly busy preparing for a trip to Egypt and then going there. I am just now catching up.

As I read the first part of your message, I was intending to type a thoughtful, respectful reply to it, to give you a perspective from a U.S. feminist.

However, this comment of yours has made me decide it's not worth bothering.

 

[Shanazel]

Please reconsider, Shira. I'd like to read what you have to say.

Having been gone for a while myself, I am just coming across this topic or I'd have joined in earlier. Jane stated my views well when she said

We are all people and deserve equal treatment.

True feminism embraces equal rights for people regardless of gender. I went into the work force and college in the early 1970s and it was no piece of cake to be the only woman in my major at college or one of only two or three women in my field. I would've had a much harder time of it had it not been for people like Gloria Steinem and Emmeline Pankhurst going before me.

Oh, and the feminists I have talked to in the US, the ones who call themselves feminists (to answer your question), think I am out of my mind for wanting to stay home with my children. According to them I am... well there is no need to stir that hornets nest lets just say it's quite insulting. Fortunately I happen to find it amusing if not a little sad.

Maybe you haven't talked to enough US feminists. I stayed home with my children for many years. Being a fulltime homemaker didn't impinge on my feminist beliefs in any way nor did anyone, including the most vociferous feminists I know, ever critisize me for my choice. However if a person places a chip on her shoulder about any choice she makes, she is bound to find someone who is more than willing to knock it off.

 

[Ariadne]

I assure you Shira my comment was only me admitting that there are different POV's in the US and that it was likely someone would come on and disagree. I was honestly amused and nothing more. I would also love to hear what you have to say on the subject as I respect your opinion greatly.

It has nothing to do with a chip on my shoulder or anything else other then running into this,

When I got out, I was the stay at home mom and homemaker. I was surprised at how many women felt the need to comment on it; implying that I was either lazy or being oppressed.

... repeatedly. It does get frustrating after a while. I have personally used the fact I homeschool my children to shutdown accusations of just that; I hate getting in that particular conversation. (Mind you a few of them follow that up with "why don't you send your kids to school so you can go get a job?" )

Even if it isn't an experience that is familiar to everyone that does not mean it doesn't happen or that I am looking for a fight by bringing it up. Honestly, I usually avoid conversing on the subject because someone always gets offended. (Which is why I had intended to slip out of the thread once it had been said and hoped not to offend.) I just thought that this forum may be one place I could expose a different set of experiences or views without fear of reprisal. I like to think that is a good thing but since evidently feelings have been hurt I will just say sorry and go.

 

[shiradotnet]

I assure you Shira my comment was only me admitting that there are different POV's in the US and that it was likely someone would come on and disagree. I was honestly amused and nothing more. I would also love to hear what you have to say on the subject as I respect your opinion greatly.

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm the youngest of 4 children. I grew up in a low-income rural farming community, and yes, my family's income was below the poverty line. My mother was a full-time homemaker until I was old enough to enter school, somewhere around 1961 or 1962. At that time, my oldest brother was in high school, and my family strongly believed that a college education was the key to escaping the cycle of poverty. Although my dad earned enough as a farmer to feed and clothe the family, there wasn't enough money for higher education. And therefore, my parents decided that, with me being old enough to enter school, the time had come for my mom to seek a job outside the home.

She started by applying for a job as a school bus driver, thinking this would generate income while allowing her time midday to still help my dad with the farm. So she applied for the job, got it, and got the necessary driver's license and training.

Well, when word got out in the community that a WOMAN was going to drive a school bus, all hell broke loose. I remember riding with her on the bus her first day of work. She picked up all the students and delivered them to the school, and there were picketers at the school holding up signs protesting the fact that a WOMAN was driving a bus. They were chanting slogans, and being horrid about it. The school board caved in to their demands and fired my mother.

That's my earliest memory of seeing my mother cry.

And over what? A bunch of idiots who thought that somehow only people with penises were qualified to drive school buses.

It was on that day my feminist belief system was born. It seemed flagrantly unfair to my 4-year-old brain that an adult woman with an impeccable driving record would be fired from a job solely on the basis of being female.

The happy ending is that my mom went on to get a job the following year as a school teacher (which WAS acceptable work for a person without a penis). It paid more than driving a bus, and resulted in a vibrant career for her.

But this is the sort of thing that Gloria Steinem and the US feminist movement of the 1960's were targeting with their work. They envisioned a world in which women would have CHOICES. They believed, and I too believe, that a person's gender should NOT be a factor in deciding whether s/he gets a job.

 

[Shanazel]

Thank you for sharing, Shira.

Some fulltime homemakers criticize women in the work force for neglecting their children and some mothers with outside jobs critisize the stay at homes for having no ambition. I've been both and have no problem with the way anyone wants to lead their life. People tend to get defensive about their choices when those choices get criticised. And since the best defense is supposed to be a good offense, we develop chips without even realizing they are perched on our shoulders.

One really can't expect to express any strong opinion without hearing strong opinions in return. The trick in any discussion is not to take dissent as a personal attack and to not perceive disagreement as reprisal.