Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: pgs. 85-101
First, I found the discussion about rape and domestic violence to be really interesting. I guess people just didn't have a common understanding about it because it wasn't discussed publicly.
"In most people's minds, rape occured when a strange man jumped out of the bushes or pulled a woman into an alley; people did not realize that the majority of rapes are committed by men who know their victims. As with the issue of abortion, a culture of silence surrounded the issue of sexual violence, which included not just rape but also domestic violence, which was seen both as a private matter between husband and wife and as something a woman probably provoked." (pg. 87)
When you think about it, how can a concept like domestic violence "exist" until people, on a large scale, acknowledge it?
In addition, I found the sidebar entitled "DIY (Do-It-Yourself...it took me too long to figure that abbreviation out) Abortion" on pg. 96 to be really interesting. The Jane collective must have been really comforting to women who were either embarrassed about getting an abortion or didn't know a safe place to start. However, I think it was unsafe for licensed doctors or "Janes" to teach other members of the group who were not professionals, and then allow them to conduct abortions on their own.
One thing that just plain weirded me out was the whole WITCH (Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) organization, because it souded more like some creepy cult than a bona fide group for activism. On pg. 88 it says, members "...dressed up as witches and put a hex on Wall Street on Halloween 1968." They also did some chanting of "Here come the slaves, off to their graves," at a bridal protest and "released white mice into the crowd." I feel like dressing up as witches would only reinforce negative stereotypes about women...(Salem Witch Trials, anyone?) but if someone can explain this organization to me, please do.
Rarely do I find ideas to be too radical, but I thought that the whole lesbian separatism thing was a bit strange. I'd always thought of sexual orientation as a part of personal identity, not a means of political protest or feministic enlightenment. Women seemed to be kind of "going lesbian" in the hopes that they could come to an understanding about other women and acheive true womanhood. On page 93, in a section about Radicalesbians, the book says, "In the essay, they asserted that lesbianism was a political act, a way of showing solidarity with other women by living with them and without men. Only by creating intimate relationships with women could feminists hope to gain freedom and happiness."
In summary, parts of this reading really irked me. Anyways, my question:
Was the exclusion of African-Americans from the women's movement just another form of separatism, whereby black feminists established a society separate from white feminists? Is separatism valuable, in that it gives minorities the right to cut themselves off from the rest of society and establish their own society according to their own conditions and beliefs?
I really liked this reading. It was satisfying to finally hear more about the ERA and get somewhat of an answer as to what happened to it.
Like Hannah, I was also struck by some of the allegations made by the 'Radicalesbians'. To me it revealed where the stereotype of "man-hating lesbians" comes from, as it seemed that many of the women wern't actually attracted to other women, but rather attracted to the idea of male-exclusion. While I don't think that sexual orientation is entirely concrete, I don't believe that you can force yourself to feel a certain way simply because you seek to "end male supremacy". Furthermore, I feel that these groups probably undermined the progress that the gay lib. groups were fighting for, in that by labeling sexual orientation as a "political CHOICE" it disregards and negates the many LGBTQ people who feel that their sexual orientation is not a choice but rather something you're born with, like your sex or skin-color.
To answer Hannah's question
("Was the exclusion of African-Americans from the women's movement just another form of separatism, whereby black feminists established a society separate from white feminists? Is separatism valuable, in that it gives minorities the right to cut themselves off from the rest of society and establish their own society according to their own conditions and beliefs?")
I believe that exclusion and separatism played a very complex role in second-wave feminism, because it seemed that by the 70's, many of the groups were open to black women, but the black women felt marginalized by the groups. Page 91 expressed many of the qualms black women had with the feminist groups, but most prevalent one seemed to be that because black women were oppressed by both racism and sexism and could not separate these two major parts of their identity, they did not feel well-represented by the radical feminist groups who "often failed to think through the ways that differences among-such as those connected to race and sexuality-mattered a great deal" (89)
Because of this oversight, I think that Separatist groups can be very valuable, like the Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press, which first made the assertion that oppressions interconnect. However, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the separatist groups to try to educate the other feminist groups, so that they might learn and understand the views of the black feminists, thereby progressing the feminist movement as a whole.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: My Question:
My Question:
-How do you think Cultural Feminism (pg 97) affected the rest of the women's movement and society in general?
-Was it beneficial to focus on embracing lifestyles that celebrated Women-made,-run, and -centered things rather than activism?
-Did 'Cultural Feminism' evolve out of radical feminism, or as a more benign antithesis to it?
Well, Ms. Dicker, that's a lot of information to take in.
I am going to answer the second part of Hannah's question (Is separatism valuable, in that it gives minorities the right to cut themselves off from the rest of society and establish their own society according to their own conditions and beliefs?")
My answer is two-sided. I think that separatism is valuable because it offers support. It is comforting to be surrounded by people with the same views and backgrounds as you, as it makes you feel like you fit in with the group. It makes you feel like your opinion is valued and heard.
On the other hand, though, I think that separatism has its flaws. On page 99, Dicker brings up a word that caught my attention: diversity. Well, here at CSW, we take pride in our diversity, and it is something that we stress to perspective families. (thank you admissions office). The diversity in our group brings together a lot of varying opinions. It ensures that we think about many different sides of an issue. It allows us to understand where people of different backgrounds are coming from and how people are affected by warrants and speakers in different ways. While I believe that one person can make a difference in the world, I also think that there is value in numbers. With less diverse groups forming at this point in the women's movement, an element of unity is lost.
My question for you:
"A woman can best find out who she is with other women, not just one other woman but with other women who are also struggling to free themselves from an alien and destructive culture" (Dicker, 94-95).
While I'm pretty sure this woman was talking about lesbianism, I'd like to hear people's opinions on this quotation. Don't you think that some men are trying to free themselves from the alienated culture, too? Is it fair for women to make a general assumption that men are satisfied with their roles? Why or why not?
I'm going to respond to Heather, and hopefully no one posts before me -_- "A woman can best find out who she is with other women, not just one other woman but with other women who are also struggling to free themselves from an alien and destructive culture" (Dicker, 94-95).
The part about lesbians is what most interested me in the reading. I never associated lesbians with the feminism movement, mainly for the reason Olivia stated earlier- it wasn't a political choice, but rather something you couldn't chose and were thought to be born with. But obviously, there existed discrimination against lesbians, that they struggled to end. I think the quote explains what it meant to a lesbian THEN, and how the definition of a lesbian NOW is so very different. The idea of being a lesbian didn't just mean that you were more sexually or physically attracted to other women- it meant that you also felt more comfortable with and more connected to other women, and better identified yourself with another woman.
I believe the idea of being gay (men liking other men) wasn't as well known or popular, because men didn't have the need to escape any sort of oppression from the opposite sex. Women as lesbians was in a way, a result of what existed in the relationships between men and women. It is fair for women to make the assumption that men were satsified with thier roles. There would always be exceptions, but for the most part, men were always at the top of the ladder, and more privledged, and never had to deal with fighting for rights.
My question is about cultural feminism. "Another variant of feminism was cultural feminism, which advocated for "women's culture" of art, music, and women-created institutions..." (Dicker, 95) Cultual feminsm was all of these things, but what did it really mean to women? What did it represent for them- a type or freedom, or what?
I was going to bring up exactly what OMac did about sexual orientation and 'choosing' to be lesbian in order to make a political point. This really bothered me when reading it because it is generally accepted (at least now at CSDubbs) that sexual orientation is not a choice. Just not while I was writing this though, I realized that it probably was not thought of as a birth trait but actually WAS thought of as a decision one makes. (But maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't really know enough about LGBT history to make statements like that, but for the purpose of this post I will. So whatevs.) Also, women who were 'choosing' to live a lesbian lifestyle didn't necessarily love the other woman, they were just living a homosexual experience. Being with another women does not mean you love her, and personally love is what I associate homosexuality is, not living conditions or public appearances. I don't really think I got across any solid points, but oh well.
The DIY Abortion page struck me because for some reason it made me think about the actual physical act of an abortion. When Dicker talked about learning how to use "clamps, curettes, and forceps" it made me think of the very opening scene in Orphan (I hope some other people have seen this....) which was extremely graphic. I had always thought of abortion almost as just something to do if you get pregnant when you don't want to, but never really thought about the actual procedure of it, mainly because I don't know any of the logistics. But when that image came into my head, it really clicked how gruesome and serious getting an abortion actually is.
In terms of Heather's question: While I'm sure there were some men in the 70s unhappy with their roles, I think their struggles would have been more about other issues in their life, since males had the power. Issues such as race or class or sexuality would probably have inhibited them more than their gender. Of course some men may have felt trapped in the money-maker (not like a butt, but the actual financial supporter) role of the family and felt tremendous pressure because of that assumed responsibility. It's hard to say though, since we don't hear much about male issues (masculinism?) since men have always been in the power position (in the US at least.)
On page 86 Roe v. Wade is discussed. Dicker says that "it did not legalize 'abortion on demand' as feminists had wanted and instead placed limits on abortion based no the fetus's viability outside the womb." If this is the case, were any true gains made with this decision?
So, for starters, Phyllis Schlafly can kiss my ass, and I'm pretty sure the term "lavender menace" would not be considered politically correct in this day and age.
But, to answer Olivia's question regarding cultural feminism (as best I can at least):
It reminds me of "cultural judaism" which is more familiar to me. For instance, many of the Jewish folks I know, myself included, while not that observant, still [i]feel[/i] Jewish through eating traditional foods, using occasional Yiddish terms, and, most importantly, feeling a sense of kinship with other Jewish people.
I think the same goes for cultural feminism. It seemed to me throughout the reading that many leaders of women's liberation were so devoted to "the cause" and general radicalness of it all, that they almost lose sight of what they want. Isn't the goal for women to feel empowered and happy and full of self-love? If I were a feminist from the 1960s/70s, I might see cultural feminism as an opportunity to just enjoy being a woman, enjoy feminine things, and enjoy other women around me who feel similarly, lesbian or not.
I think of cultural feminism as a sort of diet-women's movement. It removes the political obligations so that women can enjoy feminism. However, I don't think women would have made the same kind of "progress" had we not had such examples of political activism. In that sense, I sort of see how lesbianism is a political choice? I can't say I'm convinced, yet, though.
My question has more to do with the ERA. It seems its downfall in the 70s was in part due to the idea of Traditional All-American Values - the same one that caused McCarthy's communist scare and that now inhibits gay marriage legality, gender equality, black women on the cover of magazines... Why are Americans afraid of progress? I say Americans because it isn't just white oppressors, but even self-sabotaging minority groups.
What sort of wonderbread ideal is stopping real change in its tracks?
I don’t know about anyone but I am so pumped to read the next chapter. The ending of this chapter was so juicy!!! It completely relates to my C-Block Class which is Gay and Lesbian literature. While reading this I was like “I totally just watched Stonewall!” In that movie it basically talked about how homosexuals were discriminated against because they lived in a heterosexist society. And basically not only lesbians, in the Dicker, being discriminated against society but against women too, which I think is crazy. I was amazed at how lesbians who were apart of the movement and how their issues didn’t seem important. Wait, not sure but I could’ve sworn we said that the ERA still hasn’t passed to this day? Right? But anyways to go onto Lizzie Question, I don’t really understanding your question, because Americans also can included men not only “white oppressors, but even self-sabotaging minority groups”
Are you specifically talking about feminist groups? As a whole?
Anyways, a question from me, toward the end of the second wave, would you say oppressed women have stopped becoming the oppressors? (Question makes more sense in my head than written out) :]
Just like last nights reading I enjoyed this one because it brought up topics that have been stirring in my brain since the beginning of the class. Dicker mentions on page 86 that the Redstockings used personal reasons to promote abortion rights, rather than political one's. A particularly ingenious aspect of sharing personal stories of abortion was the fact that in doing this the feminine mystique which held so many women women in an ignorant benighted paralisis was shattered (at least partially) encouraging other to realize that their problems were shared by many many other women and that action to end these difficulties was necessary.
I find the criticism of marriage to be an interesting aspect of second wave feminism. I am not sure, but my impression is that currently there is no women's movement against traditional marriage. I believe that the full scale all encompassing attack on marriage by second wave feminists was in all likelihood detrimental to their movement. It seems foolish to accuse something as simple as a contract between two individuals to share resources and remain together until death or divorce separates them of being intrinsically detrimental to women. I understand the desire to change the general public attitude towards marriage, attempting to make it into an equal partnership with no specific roles in mind from the get-go, but the vitriolic manner in which second wave feminists lept onto marriage does not seem wise.
As for Helen's question I ma afraid I cannot put forth much more of an answer than I ma sure you are already aware of, but I will proceed nevertheless. It seems that, while second wave feminism still possessed some of the racism which existed in first wave feminism it was at least beginning to be addressed. As I am sure you noticed on page 91 Dicker refers to the statement by Ware that white and black women could work together to further the cause of feminism, but at the same time women belonging to the classically oppressed groups still complained of only superficial nods towards equality, and a lack of true integration of "poor women, black and third-world women, and lesbians"
I would like to answer Asha’s Question about cultural feminism. "Another variant of feminism was cultural feminism, which advocated for "women's culture" of art, music, and women-created institutions..." (Dicker, 95) Cultural feminism was all of these things, but what did it really mean to women? What did it represent for them- a type or freedom, or what?
I think cultural feminism provided an opportunity for women who where not as interested in the politics or fighting that radical feminism consisted of to join the movement and feel like they were growing as a community. This way women who didn’t want to fight could help out the movement and take part in music festival and such that could spread ideas about feminism. I think it also did a great job of creating culture that women who had been fighting for equality with men for so long could take part in.
I think that in reality if this were the only type of feminism around that not much would be accomplished. Betty Friedan went too far when she claimed cultural feminism as “’a schizophrenic retreat from the necessities and actual possibilities of the modern women’s movement.’” (97) I think she failed to realize what is was accomplishing for women and how it formed community. She is right though that if there were just cultural feminism, women would not be taking advantage of the opportunity to become equal with men.
My question is: How do you think it got to the point that it was shameful for women to talk about rape or domestic violence and do you think this was just another structure set up to keep women from fighting back?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
