Feminists? Any here?

[GLC1968]

I see it as taking advantage of the opportunities that the feminist movement helped create.
Some plant the tree, some sit in it's shade.

It rankles me that you see what I do as "sitting the shade". I guess I should have said that chosing the career I did and then busting my rear to succeed in it was no cake walk. This was particularly obvious when I was in school and was surrounded by 'old boy' professors (and one arab one-who clearly had REAL issues with women in my field) who daily said things that would have made many women question their choice. I took it as a challenge and laughed at their small mindedness. While I may not be blazing brand new trails, I'm certainly doing everything in my power to help further clear those early paths so that there is plenty of room for more women to follow in my footsteps. And yes, I take every advantage that being a woman affords me.

My point about being a feminist is exactly what Zen pointed out...by my taking advantage of being a woman and working it to it's full potential, I guess I can't be considered a feminist. Like so many have said here, a feminist is about equality for all. It's really too bad because truly 'working the system' to advance an idea is an area that I can testify offers great opportunity to futher the cause. I believe that women (and all minorities) should be able to do whatever they choose to do. I don't buy into 'feminism' as a classification for me because the very nature of the definition makes the choices that I made invalid or somehow unsavory, if you will.


And for Oakleaf and others who expressed frustration at the idea that some of us feel that feminists look down on stay at home moms, I would like to point out that back when I was an impressionable young girl and first forming my views about how women fit into this world, the feminists that I was exposed to DID look down on stay at home moms and woman who took traditional female roles in the work world (like stewardesses). I understand why they did and I also understand that 1) not every feminist felt that way and 2) it's very different now, but the fact of the matter is, these early radical women were my first exposure to the idea and they were influencial in how I developed my views. That isn't to say that they have any bearing on why I don't consider myself a feminist now, but it is the reason I didn't jump on the band-wagon back then.

And I do agree with Irulan that there is absolutely a disdain towards women who choose to stay home and raise childern AND there is also disdain towards those who chose to have careers and not ever have children. Where did this huge barrier/line come from? Why does it have to be either or? Again, I know that most people here don't feel this way and I'm not blaming feminists for this...I'm just saying that there is a big barrier there and the idea that women can choose EITHER path is clearly not widely accepted yet. With all the negative connotations associated with the word 'feminism', perhaps a different movement would be more effective?

I'm hereby declaring myself a 'humanist'. Anyone wanna join me?

[OakLeaf]

I missed where I said that no feminists ever looked down at SAHMs. In fact, I acknowledged that some, maybe many, did so.

I'll go further. As a teen, I was one of them. I don't remember ever having said anything directly personal to anyone, but I may have, and whether or not I did, I apologize.

You know where I originally learned that attitude?

From my non-feminist, traditional-sex-role dad. And the way he treated my own stay-at-home mom. From my earliest memories, her work and her role was devalued and disrespected and openly insulted. Not by feminists. By a patriarchal male. I learned that, and it wasn't until I left home and began to associate with women who respect women (a synonym for feminists) that I was able to unlearn it.

[Irulan]

I missed where I said that no feminists ever looked down at SAHMs. In fact, I acknowledged that some, maybe many, did so.

I'll go further. As a teen, I was one of them. I don't remember ever having said anything directly personal to anyone, but I may have, and whether or not I did, I apologize.

You know where I originally learned that attitude?

From my non-feminist, traditional-sex-role dad. And the way he treated my own stay-at-home mom. From my earliest memories, her work and her role was devalued and disrespected and openly insulted. Not by feminists. By a patriarchal male. I learned that, and it wasn't until I left home and began to associate with women who respect women (a synonym for feminists) that I was able to unlearn it.

In a lot of ways this post really makes me smile... we are on opposite ends of the experience spectrum here. This really shows how we are so much products of our own experience, in addition to a larger culture.

My mom was an original 60's working mother feminist ( almost a bra burner but not quite), my dad was a weak man. I was spoon fed feminist idealism from a very early age, but the paths I took with my life soon diverged from the then typical feminist agenda. That would have been fine on it's own, but within my own peer group, I got a whole lot of crap for it.

i will leave it at that.

[Crankin]

It's funny, your experience of the SAHM vs. working outside the home mom varies so much, depending on your peer group. When I had my kids in the 80's, everyone I worked with was my age and having kids. I never gave a thought to staying home, even if I could have afforded it. But then, one summer I took my older son to a mother-child toddler activity class. There, I met up with a group of women that eventually became some of my closest friends. But none of them worked. This was a group of 40 or so women. I went to the play groups, classes, and couples activities in the summer and on the weekends/nights. No one dissed me, but they just didn't understand how I could live my life the way I did. All of these women were highly educated, too. When I got pregnant with the second one, I was asked, "So, you're going to stay home now?" They were surprised when I said "no," but I think I was somewhat accepted due to my "traditional female career."
Some of these people had been married much longer than I had been and waited to have their kids.
My lifestyle worked out very well for me, my husband, and kids. I never expected anyone to do exactly what I had done; it's too personal of a decision. My mom, who never worked, continually told me to have a career and my own money! I think she was born too early. Although my dad was quite active in household things and child care for a man in the fifties and sixties, my mom would have received a lot of cr*p from her peers for working back then. It just wasn't done, especially where I lived.

[Mr. Bloom]

I was spoon fed feminist idealism from a very early age, but the paths I took with my life soon diverged from the then typical feminist agenda. That would have been fine on it's own, but within my own peer group, I got a whole lot of crap for it.

But, at the core, isn't that was all this is about...having the freedom to determine what is right for you without:

• subordinating your beliefs to someone else's mold
• subjecting yourself to someone else's interpretation/perspective of things around you?

Forget gender...isn't that at the core what freedom is? True freedom is the ability to do what you NEED to do without being subjected to the persecution or the pressure of what someone else WANTS you to do. If you NEED to work to support your family - GREAT! If you NEED to stay home to raise your kids - GREAT! Every situation and circumstance is different, so why do some believe that there is only one mold that works A working mom is no less a woman than a SAHM and vice versa.

And, for the record, I am not a "male feminist", because, I believe at the core, that there is not equality in any extreme. Women are women, men are men - there are inherent differences, but there is no superiority in God's eyes...so there's no room for any sense of superiority in mine.

[Grog]

But, at the core, isn't that was all this is about...having the freedom to determine what is right for you without:

• subordinating your beliefs to someone else's mold
• subjecting yourself to someone else's interpretation/perspective of things around you?

Forget gender...isn't that at the core what freedom is?

I think a lot of the liberation movements (of all strands) have been about realizing how "what we want" is actually constructed. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that the world already exists by the time we're born and there's lots of expectations on people about how they're supposed to behave and be treated. 2That's the way we do it."

These expectations are based on gender for a large part and on other things too, call them race, class, ability, etc. You realize that these expectations are there when you break them, and you're negatively sanctioned for it. When you're clearly made to feel that you do not belong somewhere, or that you are not behaving in a way that's appropriate for you. I felt a lot of that when I was in a position of leadership in a political organization for a while (it ended in me resignating). I felt that (less so) when preparing to get married and feeling that I was out of place, not because I was a woman but because my culture was a bit different from that of the person I was marrying. (It did not end and it works nicely despite the difference.) As long as one behaves exactly as expected, nothing is noticeable. When things start differing from the expectations, you're in for a ride. And we live in a world with lots of difference now, international mobility, different languages, etc. so there's lot of people feeling that kind of "friction" all the time. (We need some Chamois Butt'r.)

To say the least, expectations are not distributed evenly, and a lot of people are getting the wrong side of the deal. Often they don't really notice it. Many religions are built around the acceptance of one's place in the system and the hope that the next time around (next life, or in heaven) it will be a better place. Changing the deal is largely impossible to fight on one's own, because the lines are so deeply drawn. That's why collectives form.

So what is real freedom?

For my own life and ethics, I've accepted that there are expectations that I will simply fulfill, gender roles I will take, etc. because they are so deeply carved into me. I'm not sure if that's freedom, but I need to pick my struggles, and freedom is not my priority I guess. There are other expectations that I really don't think are right, and I do my part to inch toward change. I feel like a slug trying to get to Ushuaïa, and I'll probably get run over before I get there.

[lph]

I think a lot of the liberation movements (of all strands) have been about realizing how "what we want" is actually constructed. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that the world already exists by the time we're born and there's lots of expectations on people about how they're supposed to behave and be treated. 2That's the way we do it."

These expectations are based on gender for a large part and on other things too, call them race, class, ability, etc. You realize that these expectations are there when you break them, and you're negatively sanctioned for it. When you're clearly made to feel that you do not belong somewhere, or that you are not behaving in a way that's appropriate for you.
(...)
For my own life and ethics, I've accepted that there are expectations that I will simply fulfill, gender roles I will take, etc. because they are so deeply carved into me. I'm not sure if that's freedom, but I need to pick my struggles, and freedom is not my priority I guess. There are other expectations that I really don't think are right, and I do my part to inch toward change. I feel like a slug trying to get to Ushuaïa, and I'll probably get run over before I get there.

Well said. I think we often believe that our choices are more free than they are, because it's virtually impossible to really view all your options at every point in your life, and way too much trouble too. We tend to simplify our lives by choosing one of the options we know well, and are conditioned into.

[Zen]

Beaches are made of individual grains of sand.

Change takes time

Small things matter.

It all adds up.

[shootingstar]

Later....to read this long piece of snippets of "wisdom" with Judge Judy.

It takes long enough to read the whole of this 1 TE thread topic. Whew..!

[OakLeaf]

And, for the record, I am not a "male feminist", because, I believe at the core, that there is not equality in any extreme. Women are women, men are men - there are inherent differences, but there is no superiority in God's eyes...so there's no room for any sense of superiority in mine.

What makes you think that feminism has anything to do with "superiority?"

[Mr. Bloom]

some of the original posts...clearly imply that many do believe that...I don't personally think it does...

[Deborajen]

Feminism has a lot to do with superiority. Its roots are in the women's movement for equality - political, social and economic. Since the days of suffrage (and even way before that) women have fought for such things as the right to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, and to break social barriers by doing such things as riding a bicycle. It was about being given equal rights and not being treated inferiorly.

It's true that times have changed a lot, and I agree with one of the first posts on this thread that it's harder to distinguish a feminist from a non-feminist woman anymore. There are laws that protect equal rights (or at least try to). Women are still, though, generally more challenged at such things as being accepted as authority figures. Some of this is social and some of it is economic (ie., workplace titles and corresponding salary, etc.). Although it's now acceptable for women to ride bikes, a lot more men ride than women. I wouldn't call this a "superiority" thing because it's more of a societal role, but maybe I'm somewhat of a feminist in that I'm in favor changing the role a little more.

No, feminism isn't entirely about superiority. Today it's definitely less about superiority than it was before, but it does does still exist and it's definitely in feminism's roots.

[Zen]

The word "superiority" doesn't even fit in this sense. It just doesn't sound right to my ear. Equality, yes, superiority no.