Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:28 am Post subject: pages 79-85
I liked this short reading. It talks about how the personal problems are also political problems. One striking thing to me was that "the importance of listening to a woman's feelings was collectively to analyze the situation of women, not to analyze her.... It was and is the conditions women face, it's male supremacy, we want to change." (Dicker, pg 82)
So, who is listening to the women's feelings? If women as a whole were analyzed, the minority's feelings would get overshadowed by those of the majority.
Another thing that i found interesting was on page 84 when it talks about the "objects of female torture" being thrown into a "Freedom Trash Can." (pg 84). This must have felt empowering and effective, as the women were physically carrying out actions themselves.
My question is: If we had a Freedom Trash Can today, what do you think would be thrown in it?
Since I'm the first one posting I will start to answer my question so:
I think that many items that were thrown in the 70s would also be thrown in the can today. I think that accessories, weight loss pills, copies of Cosmopolitan and Seventeen would be thrown away. But what else represents a woman? or even a man? What besides accessories and products could be thrown into the trash can?
Lastly, when I was reading on page 82 about the different levels of oppression and who could/couldn't understand the oppression of certain people, i thought back to today's assembly. It seems like there was a lot left to talk and think about and this part of the reading brought back my thoughts from assembly. Feel free to comment.
If there was a freedom trash can today, I think along with some of the items Heather mentioned that were thrown in during the 70s, many women would throw in all things-weight loss and plastic surgery.
My question: Do you think that the de-centralized, non-hierarchical way in which the women's liberation groups were run, helped or hindered the movement?
first off, holler to heather on that assembly reference. I'm totally with you, and would comment, but I don't think I'll be able to articulate myself very well.
the OTHER olivia's question: Do you think that the de-centralized, non-hierarchical way in which the women's liberation groups were run, helped or hindered the movement?
The thing that struck me as SUPER interesting about this is that you really don't hear about this delicate-balance-of-power-nonhierarchical format for ANY OTHER MOVEMENT. Movements that, if I may generalize, were run mainly by men. (I'm not referring to any specific movements, its just that feminism is pretty much the only one [besides abolitionism] that was women-run) This was frustrating and funny to me. When the dicker said women's libbies criticized that woman Kate Millett for wanting to be in the spot light when in actuality she just WROTE a BOOK, I was like "Come on now. You ladies are being silly." But it was funny because (and this is where things get theoretical) I feel like I, as a girl, have actually experience that power stuggle/group dynamic with other girls, but sometimes when theres a guy there its easier to just let him take the lead.
TOTALLY not trying to condemn guys and i know that was a generalization, but that sort of brings up the notion of a very subconscious, institutionalized sexism.
ANYWAY, back to answering o's question, I think that it was definitely a new tactic designed to hear everyone's side... but unfortunately, based off of their exclusion of black women... again... that inclusion only seems to apply to white women.
hurs my q:
Whats the difference between a "liberal feminist" and a "radical feminist"?
Are these terms (liberal and radical) far more interchangeable today?
p.s. I like when readings are on the shorter side. its easier for me to form cohesive thoughts.
Now..I'm about to use a word that I dont think has come up in class conversation nor posts at any point but:
CATTY.
"...People were troubled when Robin Morgan and, later, Gloria Steinem were anointed movement spoke people by the media; and when Kate Milett published Sexual Politics, a book that landed her on the cover of Time magazine, her peers in women's liberation blamed her for seeking the limelight." (page 85)
also
"Women presumed to be seeking the spotlight were labeled 'elitist' or self promoting; even what a woman was particularly talented as a speaker or writer, group members clamored for her to step aside to give another woman a chance." (page 85)
WHAT THE HELL. This entire concept is so unbelievable to me. Women who were positively contributing to the objectives of the movement/specific group (i.e. NYRW) by gaining media coverage and raising awareness (so, basically the entire objective of "consciousness raising") were denounced as "lime light seekers." I honestly don't believe there is anyway to completely agree with that, even if the woman was loud and annoying. The fact is, this comes off as cattyness and honestly, jealously for lack of attention of perhaps doing equivalent work. Maybe its annoying when someone gets more credit than you for doing the same thing, and yet that same end goal is being met. If its by this person it will get accomplished, isn't it all about the end result? Also, doesn't pushing out women who show a stronger aptitude for some skills than others that can benefit the cause belittle and handicap the initial intent?
I don't get it. And I dont believe this categorically doesn't happen in mens groups but I've certainly never heard about any group or anyone pushing out a strong player in pursuit of "fairness."
I also want to answer your question(s) because I think it's a good one.
RADICAL vs. LIBERAL. The way I interpreted the reading, I would put these terms on a line. On the far right is CONSERVATIVE, and, moving to the left, goes MODERATE, LIBERAL, RADICAL.
I don't necessarily mean this in terms of politics, just perspective.
Liberal women wanted to make the system already in place better for them by forcing it to acknowledge them more socially as well as in the eyes of the law. Radical women on the other hand simply wanted to start over, from scratch, and institute a NEW system that would better benefit everyone.
I think this still rings true today...essentially that liberal and radical for men and women are still not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably. Or, if they are used like that, it's incorrect.
Radical means COMPLETE CHANGE, whereas liberal means ALTERATIONS TOWARDS BETTER CIVIL RIGHTS.
I'm going to talk about what Heather touched upon last- the status of blacks during this entire movement, because it struck the idea of "oppression with opressed groups" that we saw earlier during the suffrage movement.
During the fight for gaining the right to vote, the movement of women, though they were all working to attain the same thing, was extremely racially divided. Black women were purposely excluded from the movement by white women because they were viewed as weakening the argument. Blacks in general at the time were typically described as "less than a human" and were unable to do work with whites. When the status of blacks in America began to change, the white man or women's perspective of them was slightly altered. Now, during the second wave of feminsim black and white women still find it impossible to work together. "Black women did not understand their white sisters' claims of sex discrimination." (Dicker, 77) "While some women liked the idea of reaching out to black women, others worried either that black women would not come if invited, or that they could not be sympathetic to white women's grievances." (Dicker, 83) Black and white women simply could not understand one another.
I just found it really interesting how the race barrier still existed, but this time for different reasons. My question- Do you think white and black women will come together for a common cause, and be able to work as just women rather than black and white women?
Rachel, I love you.
ALSO- I was looking through last night's posts (you know. for fun.) and I saw that ryan JUST posted there and I think it was an accident so I'm going to put his post up here just in case:
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ryan Rubicco
Quote:
Branch off Olivia’s question on what the difference is between liberal and radical feminists and why they are separate, I want to bring us back to the first wave feminist movement. I think that the forming of groups in the second wave feminist movement was very similar to that of the first wave. They seemed to mirror each other well. In the first wave feminist movement there was the NAWSA and the AWSA who shared the same final goal but differed in techniques. The NAWSA was also considered to be the more radical of the too.
This is similar to the interactions of NOW and WEAL in the second wave feminist movement. In both there was disagreement over the way to achieve their goals causing a split in the groups.
I thought it was interesting how this seemed to keep recurring and I think it ended up helping the women achieve what they wanted. It framed their issues by providing a more radical view point making the more liberal one seem reasonable to the people who were originally against what women wanted at the time.
My question is: Do you think that the groups that formed in the second wave feminist era were successful in changing any of the stereotypes of women at the time?
I think (in addition to all of the cosmetic and appearance related things) some women would want to throw babies into the trash can.
Well, no. Not babies like infants, but probably some of the responsibilities that go along with motherhood. I don't think women necessarily mind being in charge of running the household, or raising the children, but I do think many women would want to get rid of the assumption that it will be them caring for the children and the husband going out to get the job. Things have certainly improved since the 50s and such, but there is definitely still a different reaction when one hears about a 'stay at home mom' vs a 'stay at home dad.' Martha talked a bit about this in class... how if a man is caring and loving it's exceptional and adorable, but if a women was to ever not nurture or visibly 'love' her children she would be a bad mother, maybe even emotionally abusive.
ANYWHO. I totally agreed with Rachel about the women seeming catty and totally annoying about the attention thing.
Are there any examples of outlets (like the 'CRs discussed on pages 79-81ish) today for women to share their struggles? Are these types of groups still necessary after the gains the movement has made throughout the years?
Hello dearest peers. I must regretfully and respectfully avoid Steph's question because I have absolutely no idea, being neither a woman interested in activism nor a man who regularly reads about such topics I am sadly lacking in any insight. While I do profusely apologize for this I did find the reading fascinating. I believe it validated what we as a class have been discussing for some time, the expanded world view (activism wise) of second wave feminism. As can be seen on page 79 women became involved in the movement to cease American military action in Vietnam, this contrasts in two, albeit related ways with the earlier first wave of feminism. Firstly first wave feminism was extremely narrowly focused. This keen focus fell largely on women's suffrage. In addition when attention was paid by the women's movement to other issues they were all issues which in some ways directly concerned women, i.e. birth control, spousal abuse, or women's education. And while the Vietnam war effected all US citizens I doubt it would have occurred to most first wave feminists to point out the connection between the oppression of women and that of all other groups facing injustices, and to take this observation and apply it to anti-war activism. In addition to this a notion which I brought up many moons ago in an earlier post was finally stated with greater directness in the reading. On page 81 Dicker points out that the women's movement began "consciousness-raising", a new from of activism in which the women involved in the movement were no longer asking for individuals participation with their vote, but instead asking each individual to step back from his or her opinions on womanhood and rethink and redefine them. In essence second wave feminism began making person pleas for introspection and self impoverishment of individuals as opposed to simply asking for their participation in governmental affairs.
As for my question (again, my deepest apologies to Steph) I was wondering if my dearest classmates agreed of disagreed with the liberal feminists, who argued that the personal emphasis being brought into second wave feminism was making the movement unproductive.
So, to answer Steph's question, I think that there is still value in CR-type groups such as the NYRW. Simply because people like to relate to a larger cause via their own personal experiences, I think that consciousness-raising groups help individuals to define group goals/movements in their own terms. Some groups today that imitate the CR-style are Girls, Girls, Girls, addiction/alcholics anonymous groups, general therapy groups, etc. Also, I found the practice of coming-together on a small scale to be in direct opposition with the isolation that white women of the 50's felt at being confined to their homes/suburban communities. Like a gradual expansion of feminism's domain, women moved from being "locked up" in their homes to participating in benign women's groups, to finally going out and staging large, public protests. Throughout this reading, I couldn't help comparing affinity groups to the NYRW and other women's groups that met to discuss common issues specific to their faction of society-white, educated, middle-class women. I don't doubt, however, that black women, poor women, immigrant women, and other subminorities also held exclusionary meetings that were restricted to their race/status in society.Because "women" encompassed so many ppl, I think it must have felt overwhelming for women to reach across racial/ethnic/religious/socioeconomic/sexual orientation barriers to include all women in the second wave of feminism. Maybe this explains why it took many decades for women of all types to finally unite. On that note, here's my question:
How have women overcome the social/racial/ethnic/religious/sexual orientation/economic barriers imposed upon them by society? Have we truly overcome these barriers, or do they still exist? What types of organizations/political actions/social reforms could help to dissolve the partitions that separate women into many self-contained boxes?
P.S. Heather, I really loved your question about throwing things into the freedom trash can.
As is evidenced by my first post, I think that consciousness-raising did benefit the second wave of feminism, largely because it allowed women to make specific connections between feminism and other issues. These connections only revtialized feminism as a compound cause which was more sophisticated than simple suffrage, education rights, or property laws.
But to focus, I’m starting to find the reading more and more confusing now. It really has to do with all these organizations. I would love it if we just go over all the groups that were occurring and which ones were didn’t help out the movement. But to answer Hannah’s question I think women began to overcome society rules on women by joining to together. When black women began to be included in the movement then that is when the progression really started happening. Protest also I feel were very important. The Miss America protest was the most impressive to me though. But Hannah, I don’t think we have completely overcome sexism ever, and to this day there is still a lot sexism towards women. I feel as if it is a fight that is never ending.
Why did some white women not like the idea of reaching out to women of color?
I just want to start off by saying thank you to Olivia. You always have my back, but that post was meant for last night not tonight. I just wrote it really late, like tonight. I want to go back to Olivia’s question about the non-hierarchical format that women took for their movement. I think that in the end it hindered the movements ability to get direction or set a course on where women should be aiming to solve issues.
Like Rachel was saying I think that it inhibited any women with specific talents to put them to use and perfect them. There was always this sense that women could only put so much input in before they became elitist and that this was only to keep it fair and even. I bet a lot of women that had much needed impute to give were not heard because of this system. So I think that the De-centralized, non-hierarchal way in which women’s movements were run hurt their cause more than progressed it.
Also I’ll attempt an answer to Steph’s question on if the CR groups are still necessary. I think that the concept of CR will always be necessary if the media and society continues to show us how we should act. Although there can be some plusses to this, both the media and societal norms form negative ideas in people’s heads by saying that whatever they are thinking or feeling that does not follow what society tells us to think, is wrong or shameful. CR’s provide a productive way to share these feeling without the fear that the person has something wrong with them.
My question is: How do you think women could have been more effective at achieving their goals in second wave feminism? And do you think that letting history repeat itself (like with the exclusion of black women and internal fighting within the movement) was a stupid error or was it needed?
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
