Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:19 am Post subject: The American Women's Movement, 1945-2000
I found it really interesting to read this weekend's packet. I enjoyed reading different people's personal opinions, especially because the people in the reading were from different organizations.
Page 35 describes the Moral Majority, a group that "linked antifeminism and antihomosexual advocacy to long-standing conservative causes: anticommunism, promotion of 'free enterprise,' hostility to welfare and federally funded human services, and an aggressive foreign policy" (pg 35).
Well, let me be the first on the forum to say that these people in the Moral Majority must be pretty unhappy. We've talked a lot in class about different groups that separated themselves from different issues, in fear that addressing multiple issues at once would weaken their argument. These Moral Majority members seem to be fighting against a lot of what we've been reading about in the Dicker... all within one group.
Later on page 35, I found an interesting quote. "Feminism kind of became the focus of everything." Is this a bad thing? Certainly for homosexuals and black women and men who were also fighting for their equality in other aspects it wasn't all beneficial but isn't it true that Paris wasn't built in one day (or whatever that saying is)?
Lastly, let's just talk about Phyllis Schlafly. She certainly had some strong opinions and a lot to say. I found it interesting that she had a lot of the same points as men who were opposing the Women's Movement, but she, as a woman was using them as her reasoning.
Here is my question:
On page 140, it says that God "made men and women to complement each other and to love each other." What is your opinion on this? Does this mean that men and women must be opposites? Have a great weekend!
Like Heather, I enjoyed this reading-CSW is such a liberal place, and we so rarely give the proper attention/respect to conservative people and their opinions. I find, however, that reading conservative arguements helps me to view the cause in a more balanced perspective. Anyway...on to the specifics of the reading specifically. I found it interesting how the proponents of the backlash really turned the arguements of the women's liberation on its head, saying that the very role divisions that women felt marginalized and restricted them were a source of honor, pride, and advantage. There seemed to to be, in Phyllis Schafly's document, the idea that all married women or mothers were thought of as weak, non-feminist women by the rest of the career women in the second wave. But is this true? Personally, I don't think that being a feminist necessarily excludes you from marriage or motherhood, or that you're a "bad woman" if you choose motherhood or marriage over a career. My interpretation of feminism is that women are allowed to choose to fill traditional roles voluntarily, but that they should always have the option of performing the roles traditionally reserved for men. Likewise, I don't think that family is an unimportant concept-or that feminists are necessarily trying to destroy society by eradicating the entity of the family. So, in a lot of ways, I'm surprised to say that I can agree with the conservatives over something...that the basis for their concern make sense (the desire to preserve families and strong morals). However, I feel like the application of these concerns is flawed, because they perceive feminism as mutually exclusive to strong, loving families and good values. In fact, I feel the opposite is true...if anything, feminism has the potential to strengthen the relationships between men and women, parents and children, husbands and wives, etc. It can strengthen these relationships by allowing greater freedom for female parents, and by fostering respect between family members regardless of gender, or gender expression/conformity.
Another couple of things I found interesting in this reading...one, the fact that feminists challenged the institutional sexism of the church, calling for women to be able to become priests, etc. Second, for the first time, one of the readings has drawn attention to the difference between men's and women's roles in the U.S. Armed Forces. Originally, women weren't allowed into the army at all. Now, obviously, they are...but women are still not allowed to engage in combat, instead doing other tasks in communications, programming, management, etc.
My Question: How do people feel about this? If men have the right to defend our country, do women need this same right in order to be considered equal citizens? Also, should women be exempt from the draft? (barring pregnant, sick, disabled, or elderly women)
Before this post puts people to sleep, I'm going to answer Heather's question. (The fact that this question makes me slightly uncomfortable is one sign of good, deep question, so thanks Heather. ) I think that, in this statement, the intention is to say that men and women were created as opposites because opposites attract, since society would be stable if everything and everyone fit together perfectly. As for my opinion...I don't think that men and women are necessarily opposites, or that they were created by God for a specific purpose. Rather, I think that people turn to this idea that each gender is mean to complement the other in an effort to comfort themselves. If people can prove to themselves that life is like a Divine puzzle, where everything was made perfectly by God, then they will. There is comfort in having a natural order, a deity to watch over you, etc. Thus, relgious polarization of gender roles is largely a result of the human need to construct a source of hope, a "God" that embodies a set of guiding ethical principles. Hope this makes sense. Now that I've completed the longest post in history...happy weekend.
Well, the draft doesn't exist anymore, so its hard to say how I would actually feel about it, but I think that women, like men, should be required to adhere to the draft, though then, because more people would be drafted overall, the exceptions for the draft could be more broad, allowing more excuses to be heard. I believe that if there were a draft today... women wouldn't be drafted, correct? Im not positive honestly, but Im pretty sure women are still exempt.
I enjoyed this reading as well, it made active reading much easier, writing "WTF" or "What idiots" next to some ideas haha Reading about the religious point of view was what really caught me, not only wanting women to remain at home, but saying that all americans must fallow christianity, and that is the fault in our society now. That's just silly.
The part where that women was writing about the faults in the ERA really made me think, do you think a lot of women shared this point of view? Did a lot of women want to keep things the same, or was it still like before where many women didnt want to share their dissatisfaction with the stereotype of women given to them as a goal?
Oh this reading... I enjoyed it very much, if only because like Laurel, I found myself scribbling swears and "Sep. of Church & State!!" in next to half of the things said.
I also found the Men's promotion of the ERA to be really interesting because I felt that the end of their #1 reason sounded ALOT like a male-version of the Feminine Mystique.."Spending our lives getting approval..so we can get to the next step on the ladder...asking ourselves 'is this what I really want to be doing with my life' " That to me really resounded with how keeping wives at homes really negatively affected males too! possibly creating a MASCULINE MYSTIQUE???
To answer Laurel's Question:
I really couldn't take Phyllis's argument that seriously because of her repeated assertions of "How great Us American women have got it!" but I think that her strongest argument was about the Draft because that would certainly scare me. I think Phyllis' stance appealed most to housewives who never really got out of the house and wern't really feeling any betterment as a result of the women's movement. I feel like these women probably came from sequestered rural towns in which they were isolated from other women and thus consciousness-raising groups and jobs outside the home, thereby unable to enjoy the benefits of things like day-care centers which Phyllis maligned.
My question is similar to Heather's but different: Do you agree with the Men's assertion in #6, that "Training men and women to be opposite of each other is, in essence, divorce training"????
I thought that was a really revolutionary idea.
I loved this reading! Given the perspectives of people with varying thoughts about the movement, I feel now as though I have a much better understanding of it. I most enjoyed reading the "Men Allied Nationally for the ERA" because we never read about the thoughts of men on the entire feminism movement. I'm glad Olivia's question was about it, and now I will answerrrr...
Q: Do you agree with the Men's assertion in #6, that "Training men and women to be opposite of each other is, in essence, divorce training"????
A:I feel weird saying I agree with that... but I kinda do. A husband and wife should be taught how to work together and get along with one another; if they're complete opposites this couldn't be accomplished. It said in the reading "God Almighty created men and women bilogically different and with differing needs and roles. He made men and women to compement each other and to love each other" (Falwell, 149) It may be true that should complement one another, but as opposites this doesn't make sense. Fire and water don't complement one another (weird analogy sorry, haha) they just sort of don't mix.
My question- Phyllis Schlafly talks about how women of American culture are put on a pedestal, and admired because of their roles as mothers. She considered having the job of taking care of children, cooking and cleaning etc. a sort of luxury... do you? Do you agree with Schlafly in that women had no reason to judge the system, or disagree?
While I had never thought about it before, I totally agree with #6 on the "Men Allied Nationally for the Equal Rights Amendment" (i.e. pushing sexes apart = divorce/desire for divorce)
i think this is true because as women have been arguing forever and men more and more--there is no easy black and white partition for the genders. Men don't all want the same thing, nor do women. By creating air-tight societal and gender-specific roles, men and women are unable to explore other aspects of their being and are instead confined to 2-dimensional versions of their character. This divide if anything, completely contradicts Jerry's Falwell's argument "He made men and women to complement each other and love each other..." How can you love what you don't understand? With such separation and assumed emotional and mental differences, how could partners not grow to hate each other over a divide of misunderstanding?
Although to be totally honest, I thought #7 on this list was even more interesting than #6...Basically the idea that looking to marry a man based on the financial security they provide indirectly fits into the idea of prostitution---and idea I don't disagree with. It's assumed that once married, you will have sex with your husband and your role dictates you will always fulfill his sexual needs. Subsequently, you will probably bear his children. In exchange, he pays for your food, clothes, home, and all other necessities. It's a lot like prostitution over the long term, and I can understand why, in the same women dont want to be seen exclusively as sex objects, men dont want to be seen as exclusively money-providers. Which of course, all ties back into the idea of the major issue of black and white gender roles.
Ahh I'm sorry Asha! I must have been typing my response at the same time you were typing yours...and your question(s) are excellent
However I've already rambled enough in response to Olivia's so I'll let someone else answer yours. I do have one of my own to pose though and that is:
If men have things women want and men want things that women have (assuming heterosexual intentions, here)--is there anyway to have a fair exchange of needs and wants WITHOUT it fitting into this idea of prostitution--the trade of body for any kind of service or physical item?
Or is this just the basis of how men and women live together and prostitution is just a mean, negative word for it?
first off, can i just acknowledge how deliciously ironic it is that there is an ann coulter add on the forum tonight? Ann being, perhaps, the modern day Phyllis?
Anywho- to address Asha's question a little bit, it was amazing to me how strongly Phyllis Schlafly's (whattaname) argument (specifically the one Asha brought up) resembled Betty Friedan's argument... for the opposite cause.
At least I think it was Betty. I can't find an exact quote from "the feminine mystique" so maybe the idea was from elsewhere, but, the point being, these women were so confused that they were unsatisfied because they had everything. They were more self-sufficient, more invested, more patriotic and safe than EVER before and they were all miserable! Thats why the beginning of feminism was all whispers while the kids were asleep. No one wanted to admit their unhappiness when they had everything.
The problem, I think, might have had something to do with "assigned" that everything, and not being able to obtain it yourself.
Also, Phyllis makes the point that a husband and kids and security were guarentees in ways it had never been before.
But a guarentee isn't always that positive- guarentees mean not only stability, but no way out.
my question:
(warning, this is fairly philosophical, so if you're not digging that feel free to skip over it)
Does the left always win over time? And when I say left, I guess I mean "more progressive". When I read some of the things in this packet, I thought about how ABSURD it would be if someone said that today (for example, take something as simple as "The husband is not the dictator of the family, but the spiritual leader. There is a great difference between a dictator and a leader." (pg.148)... people would freak.)
If you think about a lot of the issues surrounding "civil rights" the oppressed groups seem to work their way closer and closer to justice through out history.
So yeah- do the progressives tend to win overtime?
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
) I think that, in this statement, the intention is to say that men and women were created as opposites because opposites attract, since society would be stable if everything and everyone fit together perfectly. As for my opinion...I don't think that men and women are necessarily opposites, or that they were created by God for a specific purpose. Rather, I think that people turn to this idea that each gender is mean to complement the other in an effort to comfort themselves. If people can prove to themselves that life is like a Divine puzzle, where everything was made perfectly by God, then they will. There is comfort in having a natural order, a deity to watch over you, etc. Thus, relgious polarization of gender roles is largely a result of the human need to construct a source of hope, a "God" that embodies a set of guiding ethical principles. Hope this makes sense. Now that I've completed the longest post in history...happy weekend.
