COMMENTS: 232
Full Frontal Feminism
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
As executive editor of the popular blog Feministing.com ("by and for young feminists"), Jessica Valenti has schooled millions of readers on the issues that affect everyday women. Her cadre of feisty female bloggers cover everything from breaking news (the heartbreaking federal abortion ban) to pop culture indignities (sexism in reality TV) with smarts, passion and political aplomb.
As the public face of Feministing, 28-year-old Valenti has helped bring third-wave feminism to the masses. But she doesn't only want to reach the stereotypical feminist suspects (women's studies majors and middle-aged, middle-class white women). In her new book, "Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters," Valenti hopes to pass the political torch to younger women who might feel and act like feminists but be too freaked out to call themselves that. The book is written in a light, sometimes sarcastic tone that aims to make women's rights cool again -- to make feminism a lifestyle as well as a movement.
AlterNet spoke with Valenti via telephone.
Why was writing this book important to you?
It was a natural extension of the stuff I've been doing at Feministing. I've wanted to write something like this for a long time. It was a book I wish I had when I was in high school. So much feminism out there isn't accessible to younger women who aren't in women's studies classes. I [see the book as] a fun, easy intro for younger women who might buy into the stereotypes; something really accessible that girls can talk about with their friends ... So many young women are afraid to get involved in politics; they think they don't know enough to get involved. They have the views but don't have the language.
So you mainly wrote the book for young women who aren't necessarily politically active?
Yeah, I'd say so. But I hope the book will be a refresher for women who already think of themselves as feminists.
Why do you think so many young women hesitate to call themselves feminists?
I think younger women have bought into the stereotypes because the stereotypes are so intense and pervasive. I think most younger women have feminist values; that's where the whole "I'm not a feminist, but ..." syndrome comes in. The language and the word [scares women away from using it]; that's how effective anti-feminist rhetoric has become. It's strategic; they're trying to keep you away from something. What's the best way to keep young women away from something? To tell them it's ugly and uncool, and that boys won't like them if they do it. We need to frame it as someone trying to pull the wool over young women's eyes, or get one over on them.
When did you first start identifying as a feminist? Have you always been politically active?
I've always been a feminist, but I didn't have the language to say so. My mom was a feminist. I didn't start identifying as a feminist until college, in women's studies classes. I was afraid to identify as a feminist at first, partly because I was [afraid of] people confronting me about it, asking what it meant. Then, in college, it was a feeling like 'I wish I had known about this, or gotten involved in this, earlier.' It would have affected my life.
In high school, I talked about feminist issues with my friends, and we were politically active in the ways that high schoolers are. But when you're a younger woman who is loud and opinionated, speaks her mind and is candid, you fall into the trap of believing people when they say you need to quiet down, be ladylike and not talk so much. Finding something that told me it was OK to be loud and candid would have been positive ... something that validated who I was.
What are the three feminist issues you're most passionate about today, and why should people care about them?
The idea of the care crisis: childcare and work/life issues. For younger women, that hasn't been as much of a political priority. It needs to start with younger women, though, instead of us worrying about it later on ...
Also violence against women, which has become so normalized that I find it intensely disturbing.
Also close to my heart is the sexual double standard, and how that affects younger women when it comes to repro rights and violence against women. The abstinence-only education thing falls into that, as well ... the idea that women shouldn't like sex; creating legislation that enforces traditional gender roles, or legislation that says that women shouldn't have a say over what happens to their own bodies ... like the case where the girl was gang raped on video in California.
What's one of the more outrageous or scary pieces of information or research you came across while writing this book?
I don't think anything was that shocking to me. But if you've been posting about different issues every day, writing about this stuff on a bigger scale is intense and horrifying. You'd like to think we had come so far, but as I was putting the book together I was like, "Jesus Christ, this is depressing."
How bleak is our reproductive rights climate right now, and what can we do to change it?
It's really bleak. It's insanely bleak. It's not just about Roe anymore. The different kinds of legislation going on in different states is terrible ... it's become a slippery slope -- not just about abortion but about contraception and pregnant women. Anti-choice laws are going to affect all women, not just women who want to have abortions, but also those who want to have babies. Like that [health provision] last year stating that women should treat themselves as pre-pregnant. It's become a slippery slope, using reproductive rhetoric to slowly chip way at women's rights -- all of our rights.
Are you hopeful that things will change for the better in 2008?
I try to remain optimistic. It's hard when you're writing about this stuff every day, but doing Feministing helps keep me positive about the future. So many people are writing in and doing stuff on a grassroots level to make change in their communities ...
What are some of the biggest misconceptions you see out there about the state of feminism and women's rights today?
That we're not out there; that we're dwindling or dying. The same anti-feminist organizations that say we're already dead are setting up groups across college campuses [to fight us]. If feminism is already dead, why are they trying so hard to kill it? If it's dead, leave it alone and let it die.
Something that we fight against on the website is [the idea] that feminism is just for older women; that it's useless, that we're trudging along not doing anything.
But there's a vibrant young feminist community on- and offline. Women are really interested in this work. Are you familiar with the Real Hot 100? Things like that prove that women are doing real feminist work all across the country. They might not even necessarily identify as feminists, but [they're doing feminist work].
Could you talk a little about the Kathy Sierra online death threats debacle? As a female blogger yourself, what issues did that raise for you? What can we do to prevent that sort of horrible cyber-harassment from happening again?
I think her situation was horrible and everyone felt awful for her, but it was good that it shed some light on misogyny online, as well as racism ... The anonymity of using the Internet allows people to be the biggest assholes they want to be. So many feminist bloggers have gotten death threats, including Feministing; we've had to call the FBI. It's sad that it's part of being a feminist, or even being online. But that's bullshit; being harassed daily shouldn't be an accepted part of your daily experience or your work.
You wrote a piece for TPMCafe about how there are generational "feminist sororities" within the movement, and how it's harder for younger feminists to be taken seriously. What prompted it?
I felt like that conversation needed to be had. It happens behind closed doors, but no one wants to talk about it. The backlash against feminism is so intense that showing any sign of strife is scary, because you don't want to give ammunition to the right.
It had been on my mind for a long time, and I finally put it out there. I think most people were great in their responses, like Katha Pollitt's -- it got the conversation started about what we can do to bridge the gaps. So many of us put forth this united front that all is great ...
I just think there needs to be an open discourse. The WAM list (Women Action Media) and their conferences are fantastic help. Not necessarily for women writers, but in national organizing scenes, the onus is on older feminists to pass the torch and make sure younger women aren't just fetching coffee but are in decision-making positions, being taken seriously.
What are your thoughts on the HPV vaccine? It's been debated quite a bit among feminist circles.
Ann [Friedman of Feministing] has written about it. I go back and forth about whether it should be mandatory. It's a really complicated issue. I think it should be affordable and available to younger women. But whether it should be mandated or not, I haven't really figured out yet ...
I know you responded to Carrie Lukas' recent Washington Post piece about the wage gap being a "bargain," and about how women make less money because they choose to. I'm guessing you think that's bullshit.
She used statistics to make a completely tired, crappy argument that women hate making money, that women would rather sit around changing diapers than make money. No one pisses me off more than women anti-feminists; they're selling us all down the river for a pat on the head from men. This is a woman who was well-educated and on the speaker circuit, who works her ass off and makes good money. Come on; tell a working single mother that the wage gap is a bargain!
In "Full Frontal Feminism," you write about how the "romance industry" keeps women distracted from larger issues by teaching them to obsess about their love lives. How destructive is this "industry," and how can women fight the obsession?
I'm glad you brought that up. Samhita [of Feministing] calls it the romantic industrial complex ... I feel like it's destructive to both men and women, because it reinforces these ill gender roles that position women as only caring about finding a partner as their form of personal fulfillment. But it also positions men as the caretakers, as only interested in sex and beer. The whole thing is so ridiculous and limiting for people. It's damaging all around, but to women, specifically, it's insane.
When I think about the amount of time, the number of things I could have done if I hadn't been obsessing about some boy ... it's incredible thinking about it. [Romantic obsession] is not a natural state of being for young women; when you have teen magazines shoving things down your throat, it's a little hard to break out of it.
When it comes to combating it, I don't know. People are subverting it in small ways. But I'm not going to sit and tell someone [they're] buying into the bullshit if they celebrate Valentine's Day or let their boyfriends buy them dinner.
Some feminist bloggers have taken issue with your choice of cover image for the book (a slim white woman's navel with hands on hips). How do you respond?
I can see why people find it controversial; I liken it to Feministing's mud-flap girl icon. It's ironic, and we're tying to flip it around as a fuck-you to the standards.
The book cover has this commercial image, but scrawling "feminism" across the stomach -- I liken it to Kathleen Hanna (of Bikini Kill and Le Tigre) scrawling "slut" across her stomach. I'm comfortable with the idea that a teen girl is going to buy it because she thinks it looks poppy and commercial, and then get the knowledge dropped on her.
You're always going to piss someone off.
****
Excerpt
Copyright 2007 by Jessica Valenti from Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters. Reprinted by permission of Seal Press (www.sealpress.com), an imprint of Avalon Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don't hold back, now.
You're probably thinking of words like slut, whore, bitch, cunt (I told you not to hold back!), skank.
Okay, now what are the worst things you can call a guy? Fag, girl, bitch, pussy. I've even heard the term "mangina."
Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that's not royally fucked up. Recognizing the screwed nature of this little exercise doesn't necessarily make you a feminist. But it should. Most young women know that something is off. And even if we know that some things are sexist, we're certainly not ready to say we're feminists. It's high time we get past the "I'm not a feminist, but ..." stuff. You know what I'm talking about: "I'm not a feminist or anything, but it is total bullshit that Wal-Mart won't fill my birth control prescription."
Do you think it's fair that a guy will make more money doing the same job as you? Does it piss you off and scare you when you find out about your friends getting raped? Do you ever feel like shit about your body? Do you ever feel like something is wrong with you because you don't fit into this bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like?
Well, my friend, I hate to break it to you, but you're a hardcore feminist. I swear.
Feel-Good Feminism
For some reason, feminism is seen as super anti: anti-men, anti-sex, anti-sexism, anti-everything. And while some of those antis aren't bad things, it's not exactly exciting to get involved in something that's seen as so consistently negative.
The good news is, feminism isn't all about antis. It's progressive and -- as cheesy as this sounds -- it's about making your life better. As different as we all are, there's one thing most young women have in common: We're all brought up to feel like there's something wrong with us. We're too fat. We're dumb. We're too smart. We're not ladylike enough -- stop cursing, chewing with your mouth open, speaking your mind. We're too slutty. We're not slutty enough.
Fuck that.
You're not too fat. You're not too loud. You're not too smart. You're not unladylike. There is nothing wrong with you.
I know it sounds simple, but it took me a hell of a long time to understand this. And once I did, damn, did it feel good. Why go through your life believing you're not good enough and that you have to change?
Feminism not only allows you to see through the bullshit that would make you think there's something wrong with you, but also offers ways to make you feel good about yourself and to have self-respect without utilizing any mom-popular sayings, like "Keep your legs together," or boy-popular screamings, like "Show me your tits!"
Really, imagine how nice it would be to realize that all the stuff you've been taught that makes you feel crappy just isn't true. It's like self-help times one hundred.
But all that said, I really do understand the hesitancy surrounding the f-word. My own experience with the exercise that kicked off this chapter -- "What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman?" -- was presented by a professor on the first day of a women's literature class after she asked how many of us were feminists. Not one person raised a hand. Not even me. My excuse-ridden thinking was, "Oh, there's so many kinds of feminism, how can I say I know what they're all about? Blah, blah, blah, I'm a humanist, blah, blah, blah. Bullshit. When I think back on it, I knew I was a feminist. I was just too damn freaked out to be the only one raising her hand.
Most young women are feminists, but we're too afraid to say it -- or even to recognize it. And why not? Feminists are supposed to be ugly. And fat. And hairy! Is it fucked up that people are so concerned about dumb, superficial stuff like this? Of course. Is there anything wrong with being ugly, fat, or hairy? Of course not. But let's be honest: No one wants to be associated with something that is seen as uncool an unattractive. But the thing is, feminists are pretty cool (and attractive!) women.
So let's just get all the bullshit stereotypes and excuses out of the way.
But Feminists are Ugly!
Yawn. Honestly, this is the most tired stereotype ever. But it's supersmart in its own way. Think about it, ladies. What's the one thing that will undoubtedly make you feel like shit? Someone calling you ugly.
Back in fifth grade, the love of my life was Douglas MacIntyre, who told me I'd be pretty if only I didn't have such a big, ugly nose. I shit you not when I say that for months, every day after school I would stand in front of the three-way mirror in my bathroom, staring at the offending body part and trying to figure out how a nose could go so horribly, horribly wrong.
Ugly stays with you. It's powerful, and that's why the stereotype is so perfect. The easiest way to keep women -- especially young women -- away from feminism is to threaten them with the ugly stick. It's also the easiest way to dismiss someone and her opinoins. ("Oh, don't listen to her -- she's just pissed 'cause she's ugly.")
Seems stupid, right? I mean, really, what's with this na-na-na-boo-boo kind of argument? Have you ever heard of a Republican saying, "Oh, don't be a Democrat; they're all ugly"? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous. But for some reason, ridiculous is commonplace when it comes to the f-word.
For example, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh says that feminism was established "to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Okay -- have you ever seen Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, enough said. Oh, and by the way -- I think I'm pretty hot now. So screw you, Douglas MacIntyre.
But Things Are Fine the Way They Are! What do I know? Maybe things are fine for you. Maybe you're lucky and superprivileged and you wake up in the morning to birds chirping and breakfast in bed and all that good stuff. But chances are, that's not the case.
There are plenty of folks who argue that feminism has achieved its goal. The 1998 Time magazine article "Is Feminism Dead?" said, "If the women's movement were still useful, it would have something to say; it's dead because it has won."
There's no doubt that women have made progress, but just because we get to vote and have the "right" to work doesn't mean things are peachy keen. Anyone who thinks women have "won," that all is well and good now, should ask why the president of Harvard can say that maybe women are naturally worse at math and then have people actually take him seriously. Or why a teacher can still get fired for being pregnant and unmarried.
Seriously, are things really cool the way they are when so many of us are upchucking our meals and getting raped and beat up and being paid less money than men? And being denied birth control, and being told not to have sex but be sexy, and a hundred other things that make us feel shitty?
Methinks not. It can be better. It has to be.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Apr 24, 2007 12:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And tell me, do you think Rush Limbaugh (what sort of fucked up name is that, by the way?) would stop ugly women from "accessing mainstream society", if he could? What sort of a fucked-up comment was that??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: adp3d
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GoldenAss on Apr 24, 2007 2:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I confess to only reading the last few paragraphs. I'm writing a paper. Yet:
"Harvard can say that maybe women are naturally worse at math and then have people actually take him seriously. Or why a teacher can still get fired for being pregnant and unmarried."
Judgment here is twice spurned. In the Harvard case, I think he ought to pose a hypothetical that has no obvious theoretical blocks--is it not possible? And is it not possible that, in turn, women excel over men elsewhere? But if it is false (and this goes for everything, such as "Holocaust deniers") then fight with fact! Throwing a tantrum proves nothing but your sensitivity.
And secondly, if your Feminism is going to fuck with context, damn it. I believe you're referring to a teacher at a CATHOLIC PRIVATE SCHOOL. She was being paid to teach the kids--scholastically and spiritually. She became a walking contradiction. If she were a public school teacher, she would be untouchable--but she was being paid to play a certain role. Being unable to fulfill that role, she was fired. Feminism has nothing to do with her. If anything, it has to do with the Catholic Church.
Careful--Feminism is a curse word, you need to watch yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Feminism is already in place today. It's too late to get behind anyone, or call it a curse
Posted by: Beck
» The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: cmv
» RE: The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: H_H
» Straw-woman arguments
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Uhm, no, HH.. its not about statistics.. which Sommers didn't present.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Uhm, no, HH.. its not about statistics.. which Sommers didn't present.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Or maybe...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: fork
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» This is the thing, though... this doesn't describe extreme traits.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: fork
» RE: Get behind me, Feminist!
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 24, 2007 4:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. She's right that men are not only interested in sex and beer. We're also interested in sports and motorcycles.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments
Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Comments
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: cmv
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» We can't admit it; it's not true. Every woman knows. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Maribelle, you rock
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Apr 24, 2007 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely untrue.
And she complaints about "tired, crappy" arguments?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: H_H
» For effect...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» O RLY?
Posted by: zettaichan
» RE: O RLY?
Posted by: suprmark
» RE: O RLY?
Posted by: fork
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: Dave Belden
» A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: Beck
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: katyalynn
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles WAY TO GO< BECK
Posted by: maribelle
» I will wear it with pride, sister
Posted by: Beck
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: katyalynn
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Well, maribelle... if you'd bothered to pay any attention...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Nah, the WORST is "Girlie Man"
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» I can think of a dozen worse epithets...
Posted by: H_H
» But, of course...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 24, 2007 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hurray!
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» I really hope this kicks off a whole new movement round the world.
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Greg on Apr 24, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bravo
Posted by: bornxeyed
» BRAVO
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4equalrights on Apr 24, 2007 5:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My regret about this book (only having read the excerpt) is the crude language. Firstly, it plays into the stereotype feminist that the Right likes to bash (and that puts off others who might be otherwise interested) because it portrays feminists as foulmouthed, "unladylike" (the very things Jessica acknowledges, but then ignores for herself and her book). This language might work for a particular group of young women, but if we REALLY want to enlighten those who think they aren't feminist or REALLY want to reach younger women (high school age) and get them to read this then perhaps Jessica and her publishers might consider producing a "cleaner" version? One that maybe a high school might consider appropriate? I know I want my 15 year old daughter to hear these ideas from someone other than her mum, but since I don't condone the kind of crude language Jessica uses, then I can't very well give her this book.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree!
Posted by: lindsay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Apr 24, 2007 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: NeoLotus
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldmarx on Apr 24, 2007 6:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure this book will do brisk sales among men, and it doesn't hurt that Ms. Valenti's quite the looker. Heck, the only thing missing on the cover is a tattoo and a navel pin!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm sure this book will do brisk sales among men!
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Check out that hot book cover!
Posted by: oregoncharles
» It's a torso; did you really see nudity?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: It's a play on words:
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BillDouglas on Apr 24, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosie O'Donnell has supported their demands for 9/11 truth, and on MSNBC, a guest suggested she was "fat" and a "*itch" and should be hung by a rope for wanting truth.
Any woman or man who is not repulsed, and does not rush to these courageous women's defense, in demanding the truth about 9/11 . . . is a fake feminist.
See PatriotsQuestion911.org
and google "9/11 Mysteries" to get educated about why these brave women are national heroes in demanding a new real 9/11 investigation.
Women's rights can never take the forefront of a national dialogue so long as the Republicans have the lies of 9/11 to cow the American public in fear, any time they seek to better the lives of Americans by diverting funding away from militarism.
Health care, fair wages, a good environment, are all ultimately the most important issues for women. 9/11 has and will be used to divert funding that could pay for women's education, better wages, etc. . . . to the fake "endless war on terrorism."
We've all been lied to. Brave women have been the heroes trying to dis-assemble the lie. Stand with Rosie and the Jersey Girls if you really want to defend women's rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Any "REAL" Feminist Would Fight for "the 9/11 Widows, the Jersey Girls" and "Rosie O'Donnell"
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 24, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We middle-aged, middle-class white women need an infusion of youthful energy into building a just society. The young women coming up (of all colors and classes) need the financial and experience "support" of established women's groups.
Youth does not remember a time when it was all about "peace, love and understanding."
This younger generation grew up with sluts, bitches, hos, bling, violence, subduing your enemies by any means possible, etc...
And in truth, if the younger generation of men don't embrace the "peace, love, and understanding" model, we're doomed.
I'd love to see a generation of young women withhold sex from ignorant-rude-emotionally distant-violent-type guys in a Lysistrata movement. It's the men who are ruining the world with their greed, selfishness, self-absorption, lack of responsibility and abuse towards the planet, animals, women and children.
No pussy until the war is over...
Cursing (from the excerpt, although I have no problem with cursing personally) seems to be a tool used to bring in women from the hip-hop generation and younger but cursing only makes us all look uneducated and uncouth in the public arena.
Just remember, young sisters and daughters, we middle-aged middle-class white women are your grandmothers in this movement.
The exhuberance and freedom of youth easily dwidles with life-responsibilities taking over.
Strength in numbers. Only intergenerational movements will bring about true change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Condi Rice... Hillary Clinton. MEN are the only ones ruining the world? Dream on!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Calm down, Joshua
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Please don't tell me to calm down after you make such a sexist statement.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Condi Rice... Hillary Clinton. MEN are the only ones ruining the world? Dream on!
Posted by: bornxeyed
» We're all in this together
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Let's REALLY not divide camps
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Let's not divide camps
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Aristophanes was joking.
Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: Aristophanes was joking.
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 24, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I witnessed the institutionalized bias as a pilot at Continental Airlines where many male cockpit crewmembers took the term literally -- that flying the “big iron” like 747s required a penis.
One of my joys at Continental was flying with the first lady pilot employed who was better qualified than some of the men in her new-hire class, simply because she had to meet applicant standards that were more stringent. Now, 30 years later at Continental, the gender difference between cockpit crewmembers only matters on layovers. Hopefully someday, male bias against women in other U.S. industries will disappear as well.
As for men who argue against feminism -- grow up and get over it!
Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 24, 2007 7:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» totally true
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: witholding sex=good idea, except they'd use it as an excuse for rape..... Maybe
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: witholding sex=good idea, except they'd use it as an excuse for rape
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 24, 2007 7:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow, I don't think Women's Studies are anything but an academic deconstruction of the patriarchial society. Feminism is this?
Why is it Women's Studies produce pretentious bitches instead of feminists? This is my question.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women's Studies
Posted by: fork
» RE: Women's Studies
Posted by: Ghoulman
» What is your direct experience
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alfalfa friend on Apr 24, 2007 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: McJulie on Apr 24, 2007 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Have you ever heard of a Republican saying, "Oh, don't be a Democrat; they're all ugly"?"
Actually, yes. That seemed to be exactly Ann Coulter's take on the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in her short-lived series of columns for USA Today.
Of course, when Coulter or Limbaugh or whatever imply that Democratic women are "ugly" they are essentially invoking anti-feminist stereotypes.
Do they imply that Democratic men are ugly? Not exactly, but they do imply they are "wimps" or homosexuals, and sometimes imply they are badly dressed.
Which doesn't negate the larger point at all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweetlou on Apr 24, 2007 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess all those girl gone wild videos are really just feminist manifestos...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I like the cover
Posted by: H_H
» Yes.. its a big "fuck you" to standards and expectations...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» thats because irony is in the mind of the viewer...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I like the cover
Posted by: The Wise Synic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Apr 24, 2007 8:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ed Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: ed Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 24, 2007 8:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the problems in contemproary feminism -- hell, even that in the 1960s -- was that it was primarily white, middle-class women talking about stuff that didn't always connect with their darker-skinned sisters' lives well.
Not that they didn't try to address it, but it is too bad when the representatives of the feminist movement -- and Valenti can be included here -- all seem to come from the same mold. It's still relatively rare to hear a black or latina woman's voice in these debates (though thankfully, less so than it was).
I went through the mill of a Lesbian Literature class (I was the only male, and I thought that was too bad. Maybe the others got scared off). I found that while it was really interesting and I learned a lot (and this was a multi-ethnic group) so much of what many academic feminists had to say wasn't really connected to day-to-day stuff. Almost all the stuff we were reading was French intellectual tradition theory. It was fun, but some of it was just plain wrong (because while the theory itself was interesting, it often fell apart when pushed up against the real world. I single out Adrienne Rich, Jacques Lacan and Gilbert and Gubar here).
Valenti's excerpt here seems to go in that practical, real-world direction, which is nice. Seeing oneself is a pretty day-to-day concern and she touches on the labor issues that also affect so many nonwhite women.
But I think one reason the right's campaign against feminism was as successful as it was is the fact that I could hear, on the campus and even off it, people seriously talk about how patriarchy comes from phallocentric language processes.
To which I said, what the hell does that matter to the women I and my dad knew on the factory floor at GE? What the heck does that mean to the Filipino caregivers who populate New York?
The same is true about things like eating disorders, which is very much a feminist issue (it goes to the heart of what Valenti is talking about). Anorexia is primarily a disease of white women. Specifically middle-class women. Even accounting for some detection bias. (I remember this documentary on eating disroders -- they were all in a rehab center and there was not a single black. latin or asian face in the group, not one).
That white-woman centric view I think has hurt the movement as a whole.
This isn't to say there isn't a feminist movement among nonwhite women -- far from it. But I find that it is often disconnected from the one Valenti represents. Some of that is the old problem of priviledge, and that a white woman is still a few rungs up and as such many of her concerns won't dovetail with a balck woman's.
That's too bad, because, as the old hokey saw goes, in unity there is strength. And many of those white women's concerns do connect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Apr 24, 2007 8:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is EXACTLY what young women need to hear.
I totally agree that the "man-sex-love" obsession is a tool to keep women confused and vulnerable. Our culture rants repetitively on the "romance" channel, and women fall for it!
Men are NOT the answer.
Most of them simply don't make enough money to resolve your financial problems and 70% of men are emotionally so screwed up, self-obsessed and sexist that they are sure to make your emotional situation worse, not better.
If we generously say that 30% of men are non-sexist, reasonable, sharing, stable and self-supporting, and I do think that that is generous toward the male sex, that means that 70% are NOT.
100% of women cannot "choose well" if only 30% of men are good choices.
Lots and lots of us are better off single. It's simple arithmetic.
Of course, it would be nice if we could all get into reasonable relationships with nice guys so we can forget about the "man problem" but since that is arithmetically impossible, we need to resolve to be happily single and celibate and not let trying to find a man absorb too much time and energy. We need to get on with building assets, buying homes, preparing for enjoyable, worry-free retirements and fulfilling careers.
There's a LOT to life besides men, emotionality and sex.
Focussing on men is a recipe for failure in life.
Let's get on with that all -- making money, getting financially secure so we can retire and relax, travel, philanthropy, intellectual development, making a difference, helping the world, giving to the needy, contributing to humanity.
Sex and men are overrated.
And, another thing that is totally overrated: MOTHERHOOD.
Childlessness should be embraced as a live, positive, fulfilling alternative to the drudgeries, subservience and environmental degradation caused by children and mothering.
People talk about buying carbon offsets for their vacations and SUVs, then they have two and three children. One child will create as much pollution in its life as we have in our life, not just that one carbon-offset vacation to Belize -- all our vacations, all our consumption, all our housing, heating, commuting, everything. Add it ALL up -- that is equal to the likely impact of the choice to have ONE child, let alone two.
Then, if that one child replaces him/herself and that child's child does the same, ad infinitum, the impact of that child is multiplied indefinitely into the future.
In 1000 generations, that one child has created 1000 times the environmental impact of EVERY consumptive choice, EVERY not-recycled soda bottle, EVERY automobile mile you imposed on a suffering globe in your entire life.
The decision to have a child has 1000 times the environmental impact of every other decision you make in your life, PUT TOGETHER.
So, voluntary, happy celibacy, childlessness and the prioritization of financial security, philanthropy and other pursuits OVER the pursuit of sex, emotional "fulfillment" and men -- that's where feminism needs to lead young women.
All this is exactly the opposite message women are getting from the "media" and all its consumption-promotion, population-promotion, debt-promotion, work-promotion, insecurity-promotion and sex-promotion.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: thha
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!! - YES
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» sexist absolutely sexist.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» She really doesn't seem to need your help, you know
Posted by: Beck
» RE: $20 says you would turn to stone if you ever saw JVDB . . .
Posted by: jblakeslee
» RE: romantic obsessions
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: romantic obsessions
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tlCampbell on Apr 24, 2007 8:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every single piece of mainstream media is so horribly saturated with skewed concepts that even the most educated person has to stop and rethink the ideas being promoted before coming up with their own conclusion, so expecting the general populace to be able to grasp a new one without it being in your face and blunt, is unwise. We need people to start telling young women that you don’t need to define yourself in xyz roles as it’s harmful to everyone, female, male, and society as a whole but unfortunately we have to accept the fact that it’s going to take portraying it in a positive, hippish way to make this happen… regardless of how we may feel about the method. It's comparable to Schwarzenegger's(sp) philosophy on making global green movements 'hip' and/or 'chic' in order for people to take interest. The bottom line is we know there's a need for change but it's going to take compromise otherwise we have elitism and inner-squabbling which inhibits progression.
I’m curious to read this book as I myself am one of those who’d rather call themselves a humanist than a feminist as I have the stereotyped domineering feminist image/persona in my mind, which to me screams ‘patriarchal domination minus the penis.’ I know it’s untrue but when everyone around me gives the exact same arguments mentioned in the article against feminists, it makes me second-guess where I truly stand.
Maybe a fresh and non-convoluted way of discussing this information might just work, maybe it won’t but it surely doesn’t hurt to have alternatives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hellofriends on Apr 24, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who is this author talking to when she says "you"? you this you that, you are beautiful, you are perfect, even though i've never even seen you. it's like an advertisement and it's manipulative.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 24, 2007 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mention is made of the fact that it is the phony trickery of women who know that they have an innate, natural capacity to attract men that is usually ignored and denied by feminists.
Instead, the endless talk about "less money for the same work." Even two people shoulder to shoulder on an assemblyline don't do the "same work," but if they belong to a union they do get the same pay.
I admit that the publishing business (whether books or blogs) depends on sensationalism to get noticed. Some women are really good at that, have you noticed?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In this case, you can tell a book by its cover.
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Well, "T" would have to stand for "torso" and "A" for abdomen, because the other T&A. . .
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cokane on Apr 24, 2007 9:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: cokane
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dikjosef on Apr 24, 2007 10:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
many people in the online community forget that the internet is, in many ways, a class priviledge. so its wonderful that they are taking this linguistically accessible approach to feminism and putting it into print for "the masses", so to speak. when she mentions that unless you are being served breakfast in bed, you are not priviledged, i laughed. the middle class in this country is incredibly priviledged. however, income disparities not only among males and females but among classes lead to gender oppression as well. it is true that college campuses are at risk places for womyn, but what about those womyn who cant afford to go to college? in many cases they are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted, refused birth control, even refused abortions (south dakota anyone?).
I also wonder how Bell Hooks would feel about this approach, considering the ignorance of race and how mainstream feminism glosses over it, and has done so for years. In a documentary i recently saw, there was a statistic that brought me to tears: 1 in 4 african american womyn between the ages of 18 to 30 have been raped. WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING?
lastly, i have a strategic proposition for bringing mainstream feminism back into the mainstream, and hopefully bringing more radical feminism back as well. I was raised by a feminist, and have always considered myself so. And growing up in a racist, sexist, classist suburb, i recognized my priviledges as a white middle class male, unlike 99% of the other white middle class males. My first year in college I was one of two people, and the only male in my intro to gender studies class to raise my hand when the professor asked who was a feminist. after that, the other males in the class refused to talk to me (the class filled a requirement, and they wanted to meet womyn, i guess?... i dont know why else they were there). For some reason, oftentimes leftist males are intimidated by feminists. But they feel a lot more comfortable when they see other males carrying the flag, proudly. I myself fly the anarcho-feminist flag, but in order to hold it i had to learn and recognize tons of new concepts. And heres the problem. Most feminist literature is geared towards womyn. Not that this is a bad thing, because womyn, for shits sake, need to learn how to rise up against their patriarchal oppressors, and need to fight for their own social justice. But im sure there are plenty of males who are willing to or, if educated in feminist discourse, would lend a hand in the fight against the genderfied oppression in our country and this world.
So, to all you hetero feminists: don't put up with men unless they are willing to call themselves feminists, fight the fight along side you, and live a life where gender equality is the name of the game.
And this opens up another point ive been considering: what about gender subversion and its fluidity? thats an incredibly important aspect of feminism as ive learned, in fact it was one of the first things i learned. recognizing that gender is a social construction (or a cult, as i and some of my compatriots beleive), it opens up huge and vast perspectives on how it effects us as a society and how we perpetuate it as a society. So, transgendered people, and LGBT people in general are just as affected by gender norms and patriarchy as hetero womyn, if not more. They are already helping to fight the fight for feminists, so why not have the feminists fly thier flag as well? in the late 60's, if you were "for the movement" you were for gender equality, racial equality and an end to the war, and possibly more.... (read 1st reply for the rest)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: feminism is about equality
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» I'll tell you what, if gender is a social construct...
Posted by: H_H
» Simple Version: "Sex" is a biological fact, "Gender' is a construct
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Even Simpler
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: even Simpler - It's not that simple
Posted by: Dave Belden
» If you're searching for the 'real rapist'...try the mirror!!
Posted by: ekipnrut
» 35% more sexual assaults
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Did you pick up the book?
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Apr 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Valenti needs to do the really hard, dangerous shitwork of feminism before she thinks she's got or knows what it takes to make it 'cool.'
No she won't do that because Valenti is afraid of pissing men off, she wants their approval and she wants to have it cute and pretty and easy. Valenti doesn't have a 'new feminism', all she has is this generation's desire to be seen as something or someone without having to do the work it takes to get there. She has this generation's inability to know the difference between a social movement and a bowel movement.
Valenti has more in common with Marabel Morgan than she does with feminism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Must feminism "go after" somebody? Is it necessarily vindictive?
Posted by: Sojourner
» Its not feminism as social movement, in some ways...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Its not feminism as social movement, in some ways...
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Uh Huh
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 24, 2007 1:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand, the cursing furious 'feminists' who attack their fellow activists and accuse all men harboring secret desires of domination and control...well, let's review the COINTEPRO files from the 60s and 70s, when FBI inflitration and disruption of political movements was the norm:
COINTELPRO in the 70s
FBI documents show that the women's liberation movement remained a major target of covert operations throughout the 1970s. Long after the official end of COINTELPRO, the Bureau continued to infiltrate and disrupt feminist organizations, publications, and projects. Its view of the women's movement is revealed by a 1973 report listing the national women's newspaper 'Off Our Backs' as "armed and dangerous -- extremist".
Covert operations also continued against lesbian and gay organizing. One former FBI informer, Earl Robert "Butch" Merritt, revealed that from October 1971 through June 1972 he received a weekly stipend to infiltrate gay publications and organizations in the District of Columbia. He was ordered to conduct break-ins, spread false rumors that certain gay activists were actually police or FBI informants, and create racial dissension between and within groups . One assignment involved calling Black groups to tell them they would not be welcome at Gay Activists Alliance and Gay Liberation Front meetings.
As in the case of the Puerto Rican and Chicano movements, criminal investigations provided a convenient pretext for escalated FBI attacks on lesbian and feminist activists in the mid-1970s. In purported pursuit of anti-war fugitives Susan Saxe and Kathy Powers, FBI agents flooded the women's communities of Boston, Philadelphia, Lexington (Kentucky), Hartford and New Haven. Their conspicuous interrogation of hundreds of politically active women, followed by highly publicized grand jury subpoenas and jailings, wreaked havoc in health collectives and other vital projects. Activists and potential supporters were scared off, and fear spread across the country, hampering women's and lesbian organizing nationally.
Just because someone says "I'm one of you!" doesn't mean, well - it doesn't mean anything at all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Some of these comments make one wonder about COINTELPRO
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Some of these comments make one wonder about COINTELPRO...
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: The Wise Synic on Apr 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Just like men, they often disapoint."
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: "Just like men, they often disapoint."
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: H.C.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: H.C.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» It is very common for women in academics o sleep their way to tenure
Posted by: Bobsays
» It's really hard to believe
Posted by: Beck
» Also... where do you get tenure from ONE person? nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» A dept. chair..a Dean..An academic VP...you moron.........
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: It's really hard to believe...no it isn't
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ekipnrut on Apr 24, 2007 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First know the history..... AND follow the money....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jan 26, 2007 9:31 AM
The following referenced article available at the SPR link is an absolute MUST read for anyone interested in the multifaceted aspect of the incarceration INDUSTRY.
SPR
Brenda V. Smith,Sexual Abuse of Women in United States Prisons: A Modern Corollary of Slavery, 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. 571 (2006). (It's a pdf file not too far down the list
There are no simplistic answers to this debacle of millions
flowing into stagnated pools of incarceration...which
can only serve to further rot and corrode the social and psychological underpinnings of society. For the above article and many more relevant to women of color and not necessarily affluent (for the time being :O) ) women consult:
ALTJAN Scroll down to my post (supra) therein and click the SPR link.
My point: This material is just one example of a domestic issue of substance that relates to working class and low income women both black and white and is categorically eschewed by the racist,arrogant,elitist hypocrites represented by at least
half of the comments posted thus far. Complete worthless
frauds...Oh and BTW..if blacks were writing articles about the
'third wave' of blackness or the fifth incarnation of 'soul power'...some of you would defecate your panties while falling
and tripping all over your chic throw rugs to get to your keyboard and rant about how blacks who write thus are controlled zombies of Sharpton..Jackson and Farrakhan.....
and then run right over to the comment threads on Black topics to pontificate about what blacks should do to 'improve their lot!! The main intent of the author is to maintain the
status quo ante...but in a 'cool' feminist way....There is no
substance to her remarks........
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xgroverx on Apr 24, 2007 8:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, Just because someone consideres oneself to be a feminist, it doesn't mean this is an exclusive classification. I think there is a misperception that if someone is a feminist, they only care about women's issues and are not concerned with other issues. Just because feminist scholars and activists focus mainly on these issues, it doesn't mean that everyone who considers themselves a feminist has to do the same. This would be like saying that because someone is an environmentalist, they do not care about issues such as race and war. Environmental issues, race issues, gender issues, etc. are all important and are all interconnected.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Male feminists
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Feminism is for everybody
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Apr 24, 2007 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There wasn't much to the station manager's response except for pointing out that the ad was written by young women.
I'm sure the '3rd wave feminists' would like that one since it fits in very well with 'women taking control of their oppression' or whatever that type of schlock is that Valenti and Susie Bright would defend this crap with.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This fits in with '3rd wave feminism'
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Same old thing...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Same old thing...
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 24, 2007 11:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be much easier to promote the equality of women and men if you got both sides involved. The reason why feminism fails is because of it's utter failure to appeal to men (among other reasons, but this is the big one that mosr feminist don't seem to get.) Feminism's worthy cause of equality is often outshouted by "blame men for everything" feminist rhetoric. Men like myself, whom believe in promoting equality, do not want to help a cause that is always a hair trigger away from being anti-man. I don't see how feminism is going to achieve equal right for women without appealing to men in their cause.
To use a crude metaphor, it would be like an all black movement to end slavery. They obviously would have a better chance of success if they had more white abolitionists on their side.
I'm aware of the history and present injustices against women. I understand why this makes many women's blood boil and throw vicious anti-man tirades against the oppressive male regime. If your true goals are social equality between men and women, then you are going to have to 'get over it' enough to not alienate liberal men away from your cause. You will never succeed all the way with just an all girl's club. It's better to have both genders together furthering the cause of gender equality.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: Bad theory.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: H_H
» You gonna register for the draft?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: You gonna register for the draft?
Posted by: freeda'all
» Oh by the way,
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: chomsky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gypsi on Apr 25, 2007 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing helps credibility like success. I own and run a small company, I own a small house with a huge lot, and a moderate mortgage Right now, it's staying power - until I have the financial means to do more, and I've run this company alone for almost 8 years. I scare some of these good ole boys half to death. Most of them. Which is cool - I live in a blue collar neighborhood. I employ younger men, my daughter's age group, because they have less problems following directions and I don't have to deal with personality issues.
I don't think we can get blue collar men to respect feminism. But I do think we can get them to respect success. (Except for golddiggers, they don't want to date the woman behind it however.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I find that winning helps credibility
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I find that winning helps credibility
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: denidzo on Apr 25, 2007 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tpaperny on Apr 25, 2007 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This was an important interview, but...
Posted by: fork
» an oxymoron.....only racist arrogant 'feminists' could fail to see that......
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: This was an important (racist) interview , but...
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skipp on Apr 25, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Right on!
Posted by: Bobsays
» A closer look . . .
Posted by: fork
» RE: Why can't femenist mind their own business
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 26, 2007 2:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These days the problems are more centered around community and social breakdown, not giving women more rights. In fact, focusing on these matters ignores bigger problems that will hurt us all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women are 52% of "us all"
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FeministReview on Apr 27, 2007 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminist Review blog on FFF
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Apr 27, 2007 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You claimed to be a WOC...you lie............
Posted by: ekipnrut
» Typical
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faultroy on Apr 27, 2007 9:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Valenti sisters are to Feminism what Yellow Journalism is to responsible news reporting. They consistently, lie, misrepresent, twist and misinform in order to further their own personal interests. They have no interest in honest, fair and responsible presentations. Feminists like Valenti are the reason there is so much resentment to and in the feminist movement. The reason many women are loathe to call themselves feminists is because they DO have brains, and they CAN read and realize that the overt twisting and misrpresentation of facts benefits no one.
Feminist of the Valenti kind do women more harm than good, in that they actually reinforce negative feminist stereotypes and thereby relegate women to second class intellectual status because they are perceived as unable to rationally think and temper their out-of-control raging hormones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blm on Apr 28, 2007 11:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the medical establishment would agree with me that being fat is not good for a person. Obesity is a growing health problem in this country that complicates numerous other medical conditions. Now, if Valenti means "fat" in the context of "anything other than fashion model anorexic" I'd agree with her. It depresses me that this is usually presented as an issue with only 2 choices; anorexic or obese. What about fit, healthy, athletic women as the ideal?
I was a bit surprised that Valenti says there's nothing wrong with being ugly, but is quick to point out that feminists are attractive. She sounds like a politician trying to be everything to everyone.
The above notwithstanding, I like her position and will read her book as soon as I finish the 2 1/2 others currently on my list ahead of hers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Stereotypes
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Bust magazine
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ames on Apr 29, 2007 9:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this in-fighting and criticism is ultimately counter-productive and reveals an alarming disunity among those who call ourselves feminists (men and women alike). We need to support each other in taking steps, however small or inadequate they may be, to promoting equality and women thinking for themselves. Criticising each other with 'I'm more feminist than thou' does none of this. We need to applaud and support women who attempt to do this, whatever the level of success, rather than castigating our own. By all means, debate and discuss what has been missed out or overlooked or over-simplified, but do it constructively, maybe even attempt to better cover that which you think has been missed or is imperfect. No one person in one book can give all the answers and cover all the issues. But there's no gain in the slagging match that this has become.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it's not perfect but it's a start
Posted by: fork
» RE: it's not perfect but it's a start
Posted by: Ames
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Apr 24, 2007 12:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And tell me, do you think Rush Limbaugh (what sort of fucked up name is that, by the way?) would stop ugly women from "accessing mainstream society", if he could? What sort of a fucked-up comment was that??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: adp3d
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: **Round of applause from me**
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GoldenAss on Apr 24, 2007 2:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I confess to only reading the last few paragraphs. I'm writing a paper. Yet:
"Harvard can say that maybe women are naturally worse at math and then have people actually take him seriously. Or why a teacher can still get fired for being pregnant and unmarried."
Judgment here is twice spurned. In the Harvard case, I think he ought to pose a hypothetical that has no obvious theoretical blocks--is it not possible? And is it not possible that, in turn, women excel over men elsewhere? But if it is false (and this goes for everything, such as "Holocaust deniers") then fight with fact! Throwing a tantrum proves nothing but your sensitivity.
And secondly, if your Feminism is going to fuck with context, damn it. I believe you're referring to a teacher at a CATHOLIC PRIVATE SCHOOL. She was being paid to teach the kids--scholastically and spiritually. She became a walking contradiction. If she were a public school teacher, she would be untouchable--but she was being paid to play a certain role. Being unable to fulfill that role, she was fired. Feminism has nothing to do with her. If anything, it has to do with the Catholic Church.
Careful--Feminism is a curse word, you need to watch yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Feminism is already in place today. It's too late to get behind anyone, or call it a curse
Posted by: Beck
» The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: cmv
» RE: The whole Harvard thing...
Posted by: H_H
» Straw-woman arguments
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Uhm, no, HH.. its not about statistics.. which Sommers didn't present.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Uhm, no, HH.. its not about statistics.. which Sommers didn't present.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Or maybe...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: fork
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» This is the thing, though... this doesn't describe extreme traits.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes...
Posted by: fork
» RE: Get behind me, Feminist!
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 24, 2007 4:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. She's right that men are not only interested in sex and beer. We're also interested in sports and motorcycles.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments
Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Comments
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: cmv
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Comments **NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF YOUR D***
Posted by: morticia
» We can't admit it; it's not true. Every woman knows. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Maribelle, you rock
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Apr 24, 2007 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely untrue.
And she complaints about "tired, crappy" arguments?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: H_H
» For effect...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» O RLY?
Posted by: zettaichan
» RE: O RLY?
Posted by: suprmark
» RE: O RLY?
Posted by: fork
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: Dave Belden
» A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: Beck
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: katyalynn
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles WAY TO GO< BECK
Posted by: maribelle
» I will wear it with pride, sister
Posted by: Beck
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: katyalynn
» RE: A few of you would shrivel up and die without these articles
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: this, of course... comes form a woman... not a man.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Well, maribelle... if you'd bothered to pay any attention...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Nah, the WORST is "Girlie Man"
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» I can think of a dozen worse epithets...
Posted by: H_H
» But, of course...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 24, 2007 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hurray!
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» I really hope this kicks off a whole new movement round the world.
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Greg on Apr 24, 2007 5:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bravo
Posted by: bornxeyed
» BRAVO
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4equalrights on Apr 24, 2007 5:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My regret about this book (only having read the excerpt) is the crude language. Firstly, it plays into the stereotype feminist that the Right likes to bash (and that puts off others who might be otherwise interested) because it portrays feminists as foulmouthed, "unladylike" (the very things Jessica acknowledges, but then ignores for herself and her book). This language might work for a particular group of young women, but if we REALLY want to enlighten those who think they aren't feminist or REALLY want to reach younger women (high school age) and get them to read this then perhaps Jessica and her publishers might consider producing a "cleaner" version? One that maybe a high school might consider appropriate? I know I want my 15 year old daughter to hear these ideas from someone other than her mum, but since I don't condone the kind of crude language Jessica uses, then I can't very well give her this book.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree!
Posted by: lindsay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Apr 24, 2007 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: NeoLotus
» RE: Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldmarx on Apr 24, 2007 6:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure this book will do brisk sales among men, and it doesn't hurt that Ms. Valenti's quite the looker. Heck, the only thing missing on the cover is a tattoo and a navel pin!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm sure this book will do brisk sales among men!
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Check out that hot book cover!
Posted by: oregoncharles
» It's a torso; did you really see nudity?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: It's a play on words:
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BillDouglas on Apr 24, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosie O'Donnell has supported their demands for 9/11 truth, and on MSNBC, a guest suggested she was "fat" and a "*itch" and should be hung by a rope for wanting truth.
Any woman or man who is not repulsed, and does not rush to these courageous women's defense, in demanding the truth about 9/11 . . . is a fake feminist.
See PatriotsQuestion911.org
and google "9/11 Mysteries" to get educated about why these brave women are national heroes in demanding a new real 9/11 investigation.
Women's rights can never take the forefront of a national dialogue so long as the Republicans have the lies of 9/11 to cow the American public in fear, any time they seek to better the lives of Americans by diverting funding away from militarism.
Health care, fair wages, a good environment, are all ultimately the most important issues for women. 9/11 has and will be used to divert funding that could pay for women's education, better wages, etc. . . . to the fake "endless war on terrorism."
We've all been lied to. Brave women have been the heroes trying to dis-assemble the lie. Stand with Rosie and the Jersey Girls if you really want to defend women's rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Any "REAL" Feminist Would Fight for "the 9/11 Widows, the Jersey Girls" and "Rosie O'Donnell"
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 24, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We middle-aged, middle-class white women need an infusion of youthful energy into building a just society. The young women coming up (of all colors and classes) need the financial and experience "support" of established women's groups.
Youth does not remember a time when it was all about "peace, love and understanding."
This younger generation grew up with sluts, bitches, hos, bling, violence, subduing your enemies by any means possible, etc...
And in truth, if the younger generation of men don't embrace the "peace, love, and understanding" model, we're doomed.
I'd love to see a generation of young women withhold sex from ignorant-rude-emotionally distant-violent-type guys in a Lysistrata movement. It's the men who are ruining the world with their greed, selfishness, self-absorption, lack of responsibility and abuse towards the planet, animals, women and children.
No pussy until the war is over...
Cursing (from the excerpt, although I have no problem with cursing personally) seems to be a tool used to bring in women from the hip-hop generation and younger but cursing only makes us all look uneducated and uncouth in the public arena.
Just remember, young sisters and daughters, we middle-aged middle-class white women are your grandmothers in this movement.
The exhuberance and freedom of youth easily dwidles with life-responsibilities taking over.
Strength in numbers. Only intergenerational movements will bring about true change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Condi Rice... Hillary Clinton. MEN are the only ones ruining the world? Dream on!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Calm down, Joshua
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Please don't tell me to calm down after you make such a sexist statement.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Condi Rice... Hillary Clinton. MEN are the only ones ruining the world? Dream on!
Posted by: bornxeyed
» We're all in this together
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Let's REALLY not divide camps
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Let's not divide camps
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Aristophanes was joking.
Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: Aristophanes was joking.
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 24, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I witnessed the institutionalized bias as a pilot at Continental Airlines where many male cockpit crewmembers took the term literally -- that flying the “big iron” like 747s required a penis.
One of my joys at Continental was flying with the first lady pilot employed who was better qualified than some of the men in her new-hire class, simply because she had to meet applicant standards that were more stringent. Now, 30 years later at Continental, the gender difference between cockpit crewmembers only matters on layovers. Hopefully someday, male bias against women in other U.S. industries will disappear as well.
As for men who argue against feminism -- grow up and get over it!
Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 24, 2007 7:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» totally true
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: witholding sex=good idea, except they'd use it as an excuse for rape..... Maybe
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: witholding sex=good idea, except they'd use it as an excuse for rape
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 24, 2007 7:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow, I don't think Women's Studies are anything but an academic deconstruction of the patriarchial society. Feminism is this?
Why is it Women's Studies produce pretentious bitches instead of feminists? This is my question.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women's Studies
Posted by: fork
» RE: Women's Studies
Posted by: Ghoulman
» What is your direct experience
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alfalfa friend on Apr 24, 2007 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: McJulie on Apr 24, 2007 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Have you ever heard of a Republican saying, "Oh, don't be a Democrat; they're all ugly"?"
Actually, yes. That seemed to be exactly Ann Coulter's take on the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in her short-lived series of columns for USA Today.
Of course, when Coulter or Limbaugh or whatever imply that Democratic women are "ugly" they are essentially invoking anti-feminist stereotypes.
Do they imply that Democratic men are ugly? Not exactly, but they do imply they are "wimps" or homosexuals, and sometimes imply they are badly dressed.
Which doesn't negate the larger point at all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweetlou on Apr 24, 2007 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess all those girl gone wild videos are really just feminist manifestos...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I like the cover
Posted by: H_H
» Yes.. its a big "fuck you" to standards and expectations...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» thats because irony is in the mind of the viewer...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I like the cover
Posted by: The Wise Synic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Apr 24, 2007 8:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ed Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: ed Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 24, 2007 8:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the problems in contemproary feminism -- hell, even that in the 1960s -- was that it was primarily white, middle-class women talking about stuff that didn't always connect with their darker-skinned sisters' lives well.
Not that they didn't try to address it, but it is too bad when the representatives of the feminist movement -- and Valenti can be included here -- all seem to come from the same mold. It's still relatively rare to hear a black or latina woman's voice in these debates (though thankfully, less so than it was).
I went through the mill of a Lesbian Literature class (I was the only male, and I thought that was too bad. Maybe the others got scared off). I found that while it was really interesting and I learned a lot (and this was a multi-ethnic group) so much of what many academic feminists had to say wasn't really connected to day-to-day stuff. Almost all the stuff we were reading was French intellectual tradition theory. It was fun, but some of it was just plain wrong (because while the theory itself was interesting, it often fell apart when pushed up against the real world. I single out Adrienne Rich, Jacques Lacan and Gilbert and Gubar here).
Valenti's excerpt here seems to go in that practical, real-world direction, which is nice. Seeing oneself is a pretty day-to-day concern and she touches on the labor issues that also affect so many nonwhite women.
But I think one reason the right's campaign against feminism was as successful as it was is the fact that I could hear, on the campus and even off it, people seriously talk about how patriarchy comes from phallocentric language processes.
To which I said, what the hell does that matter to the women I and my dad knew on the factory floor at GE? What the heck does that mean to the Filipino caregivers who populate New York?
The same is true about things like eating disorders, which is very much a feminist issue (it goes to the heart of what Valenti is talking about). Anorexia is primarily a disease of white women. Specifically middle-class women. Even accounting for some detection bias. (I remember this documentary on eating disroders -- they were all in a rehab center and there was not a single black. latin or asian face in the group, not one).
That white-woman centric view I think has hurt the movement as a whole.
This isn't to say there isn't a feminist movement among nonwhite women -- far from it. But I find that it is often disconnected from the one Valenti represents. Some of that is the old problem of priviledge, and that a white woman is still a few rungs up and as such many of her concerns won't dovetail with a balck woman's.
That's too bad, because, as the old hokey saw goes, in unity there is strength. And many of those white women's concerns do connect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Apr 24, 2007 8:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is EXACTLY what young women need to hear.
I totally agree that the "man-sex-love" obsession is a tool to keep women confused and vulnerable. Our culture rants repetitively on the "romance" channel, and women fall for it!
Men are NOT the answer.
Most of them simply don't make enough money to resolve your financial problems and 70% of men are emotionally so screwed up, self-obsessed and sexist that they are sure to make your emotional situation worse, not better.
If we generously say that 30% of men are non-sexist, reasonable, sharing, stable and self-supporting, and I do think that that is generous toward the male sex, that means that 70% are NOT.
100% of women cannot "choose well" if only 30% of men are good choices.
Lots and lots of us are better off single. It's simple arithmetic.
Of course, it would be nice if we could all get into reasonable relationships with nice guys so we can forget about the "man problem" but since that is arithmetically impossible, we need to resolve to be happily single and celibate and not let trying to find a man absorb too much time and energy. We need to get on with building assets, buying homes, preparing for enjoyable, worry-free retirements and fulfilling careers.
There's a LOT to life besides men, emotionality and sex.
Focussing on men is a recipe for failure in life.
Let's get on with that all -- making money, getting financially secure so we can retire and relax, travel, philanthropy, intellectual development, making a difference, helping the world, giving to the needy, contributing to humanity.
Sex and men are overrated.
And, another thing that is totally overrated: MOTHERHOOD.
Childlessness should be embraced as a live, positive, fulfilling alternative to the drudgeries, subservience and environmental degradation caused by children and mothering.
People talk about buying carbon offsets for their vacations and SUVs, then they have two and three children. One child will create as much pollution in its life as we have in our life, not just that one carbon-offset vacation to Belize -- all our vacations, all our consumption, all our housing, heating, commuting, everything. Add it ALL up -- that is equal to the likely impact of the choice to have ONE child, let alone two.
Then, if that one child replaces him/herself and that child's child does the same, ad infinitum, the impact of that child is multiplied indefinitely into the future.
In 1000 generations, that one child has created 1000 times the environmental impact of EVERY consumptive choice, EVERY not-recycled soda bottle, EVERY automobile mile you imposed on a suffering globe in your entire life.
The decision to have a child has 1000 times the environmental impact of every other decision you make in your life, PUT TOGETHER.
So, voluntary, happy celibacy, childlessness and the prioritization of financial security, philanthropy and other pursuits OVER the pursuit of sex, emotional "fulfillment" and men -- that's where feminism needs to lead young women.
All this is exactly the opposite message women are getting from the "media" and all its consumption-promotion, population-promotion, debt-promotion, work-promotion, insecurity-promotion and sex-promotion.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: thha
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!! - YES
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» sexist absolutely sexist.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» She really doesn't seem to need your help, you know
Posted by: Beck
» RE: $20 says you would turn to stone if you ever saw JVDB . . .
Posted by: jblakeslee
» RE: romantic obsessions
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: romantic obsessions
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tlCampbell on Apr 24, 2007 8:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every single piece of mainstream media is so horribly saturated with skewed concepts that even the most educated person has to stop and rethink the ideas being promoted before coming up with their own conclusion, so expecting the general populace to be able to grasp a new one without it being in your face and blunt, is unwise. We need people to start telling young women that you don’t need to define yourself in xyz roles as it’s harmful to everyone, female, male, and society as a whole but unfortunately we have to accept the fact that it’s going to take portraying it in a positive, hippish way to make this happen… regardless of how we may feel about the method. It's comparable to Schwarzenegger's(sp) philosophy on making global green movements 'hip' and/or 'chic' in order for people to take interest. The bottom line is we know there's a need for change but it's going to take compromise otherwise we have elitism and inner-squabbling which inhibits progression.
I’m curious to read this book as I myself am one of those who’d rather call themselves a humanist than a feminist as I have the stereotyped domineering feminist image/persona in my mind, which to me screams ‘patriarchal domination minus the penis.’ I know it’s untrue but when everyone around me gives the exact same arguments mentioned in the article against feminists, it makes me second-guess where I truly stand.
Maybe a fresh and non-convoluted way of discussing this information might just work, maybe it won’t but it surely doesn’t hurt to have alternatives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hellofriends on Apr 24, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who is this author talking to when she says "you"? you this you that, you are beautiful, you are perfect, even though i've never even seen you. it's like an advertisement and it's manipulative.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 24, 2007 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mention is made of the fact that it is the phony trickery of women who know that they have an innate, natural capacity to attract men that is usually ignored and denied by feminists.
Instead, the endless talk about "less money for the same work." Even two people shoulder to shoulder on an assemblyline don't do the "same work," but if they belong to a union they do get the same pay.
I admit that the publishing business (whether books or blogs) depends on sensationalism to get noticed. Some women are really good at that, have you noticed?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In this case, you can tell a book by its cover.
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Well, "T" would have to stand for "torso" and "A" for abdomen, because the other T&A. . .
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cokane on Apr 24, 2007 9:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: cokane
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dikjosef on Apr 24, 2007 10:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
many people in the online community forget that the internet is, in many ways, a class priviledge. so its wonderful that they are taking this linguistically accessible approach to feminism and putting it into print for "the masses", so to speak. when she mentions that unless you are being served breakfast in bed, you are not priviledged, i laughed. the middle class in this country is incredibly priviledged. however, income disparities not only among males and females but among classes lead to gender oppression as well. it is true that college campuses are at risk places for womyn, but what about those womyn who cant afford to go to college? in many cases they are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted, refused birth control, even refused abortions (south dakota anyone?).
I also wonder how Bell Hooks would feel about this approach, considering the ignorance of race and how mainstream feminism glosses over it, and has done so for years. In a documentary i recently saw, there was a statistic that brought me to tears: 1 in 4 african american womyn between the ages of 18 to 30 have been raped. WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING?
lastly, i have a strategic proposition for bringing mainstream feminism back into the mainstream, and hopefully bringing more radical feminism back as well. I was raised by a feminist, and have always considered myself so. And growing up in a racist, sexist, classist suburb, i recognized my priviledges as a white middle class male, unlike 99% of the other white middle class males. My first year in college I was one of two people, and the only male in my intro to gender studies class to raise my hand when the professor asked who was a feminist. after that, the other males in the class refused to talk to me (the class filled a requirement, and they wanted to meet womyn, i guess?... i dont know why else they were there). For some reason, oftentimes leftist males are intimidated by feminists. But they feel a lot more comfortable when they see other males carrying the flag, proudly. I myself fly the anarcho-feminist flag, but in order to hold it i had to learn and recognize tons of new concepts. And heres the problem. Most feminist literature is geared towards womyn. Not that this is a bad thing, because womyn, for shits sake, need to learn how to rise up against their patriarchal oppressors, and need to fight for their own social justice. But im sure there are plenty of males who are willing to or, if educated in feminist discourse, would lend a hand in the fight against the genderfied oppression in our country and this world.
So, to all you hetero feminists: don't put up with men unless they are willing to call themselves feminists, fight the fight along side you, and live a life where gender equality is the name of the game.
And this opens up another point ive been considering: what about gender subversion and its fluidity? thats an incredibly important aspect of feminism as ive learned, in fact it was one of the first things i learned. recognizing that gender is a social construction (or a cult, as i and some of my compatriots beleive), it opens up huge and vast perspectives on how it effects us as a society and how we perpetuate it as a society. So, transgendered people, and LGBT people in general are just as affected by gender norms and patriarchy as hetero womyn, if not more. They are already helping to fight the fight for feminists, so why not have the feminists fly thier flag as well? in the late 60's, if you were "for the movement" you were for gender equality, racial equality and an end to the war, and possibly more.... (read 1st reply for the rest)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef
» RE: splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: feminism is about equality
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» I'll tell you what, if gender is a social construct...
Posted by: H_H
» Simple Version: "Sex" is a biological fact, "Gender' is a construct
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Even Simpler
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: even Simpler - It's not that simple
Posted by: Dave Belden
» If you're searching for the 'real rapist'...try the mirror!!
Posted by: ekipnrut
» 35% more sexual assaults
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Did you pick up the book?
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Apr 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Valenti needs to do the really hard, dangerous shitwork of feminism before she thinks she's got or knows what it takes to make it 'cool.'
No she won't do that because Valenti is afraid of pissing men off, she wants their approval and she wants to have it cute and pretty and easy. Valenti doesn't have a 'new feminism', all she has is this generation's desire to be seen as something or someone without having to do the work it takes to get there. She has this generation's inability to know the difference between a social movement and a bowel movement.
Valenti has more in common with Marabel Morgan than she does with feminism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Must feminism "go after" somebody? Is it necessarily vindictive?
Posted by: Sojourner
» Its not feminism as social movement, in some ways...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Its not feminism as social movement, in some ways...
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Uh Huh
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 24, 2007 1:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand, the cursing furious 'feminists' who attack their fellow activists and accuse all men harboring secret desires of domination and control...well, let's review the COINTEPRO files from the 60s and 70s, when FBI inflitration and disruption of political movements was the norm:
COINTELPRO in the 70s
FBI documents show that the women's liberation movement remained a major target of covert operations throughout the 1970s. Long after the official end of COINTELPRO, the Bureau continued to infiltrate and disrupt feminist organizations, publications, and projects. Its view of the women's movement is revealed by a 1973 report listing the national women's newspaper 'Off Our Backs' as "armed and dangerous -- extremist".
Covert operations also continued against lesbian and gay organizing. One former FBI informer, Earl Robert "Butch" Merritt, revealed that from October 1971 through June 1972 he received a weekly stipend to infiltrate gay publications and organizations in the District of Columbia. He was ordered to conduct break-ins, spread false rumors that certain gay activists were actually police or FBI informants, and create racial dissension between and within groups . One assignment involved calling Black groups to tell them they would not be welcome at Gay Activists Alliance and Gay Liberation Front meetings.
As in the case of the Puerto Rican and Chicano movements, criminal investigations provided a convenient pretext for escalated FBI attacks on lesbian and feminist activists in the mid-1970s. In purported pursuit of anti-war fugitives Susan Saxe and Kathy Powers, FBI agents flooded the women's communities of Boston, Philadelphia, Lexington (Kentucky), Hartford and New Haven. Their conspicuous interrogation of hundreds of politically active women, followed by highly publicized grand jury subpoenas and jailings, wreaked havoc in health collectives and other vital projects. Activists and potential supporters were scared off, and fear spread across the country, hampering women's and lesbian organizing nationally.
Just because someone says "I'm one of you!" doesn't mean, well - it doesn't mean anything at all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Some of these comments make one wonder about COINTELPRO
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Some of these comments make one wonder about COINTELPRO...
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: The Wise Synic on Apr 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Just like men, they often disapoint."
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: "Just like men, they often disapoint."
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: H.C.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: H.C.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Situational Ethics
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» It is very common for women in academics o sleep their way to tenure
Posted by: Bobsays
» It's really hard to believe
Posted by: Beck
» Also... where do you get tenure from ONE person? nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» A dept. chair..a Dean..An academic VP...you moron.........
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: It's really hard to believe...no it isn't
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ekipnrut on Apr 24, 2007 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First know the history..... AND follow the money....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jan 26, 2007 9:31 AM
The following referenced article available at the SPR link is an absolute MUST read for anyone interested in the multifaceted aspect of the incarceration INDUSTRY.
SPR
Brenda V. Smith,Sexual Abuse of Women in United States Prisons: A Modern Corollary of Slavery, 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. 571 (2006). (It's a pdf file not too far down the list
There are no simplistic answers to this debacle of millions
flowing into stagnated pools of incarceration...which
can only serve to further rot and corrode the social and psychological underpinnings of society. For the above article and many more relevant to women of color and not necessarily affluent (for the time being :O) ) women consult:
ALTJAN Scroll down to my post (supra) therein and click the SPR link.
My point: This material is just one example of a domestic issue of substance that relates to working class and low income women both black and white and is categorically eschewed by the racist,arrogant,elitist hypocrites represented by at least
half of the comments posted thus far. Complete worthless
frauds...Oh and BTW..if blacks were writing articles about the
'third wave' of blackness or the fifth incarnation of 'soul power'...some of you would defecate your panties while falling
and tripping all over your chic throw rugs to get to your keyboard and rant about how blacks who write thus are controlled zombies of Sharpton..Jackson and Farrakhan.....
and then run right over to the comment threads on Black topics to pontificate about what blacks should do to 'improve their lot!! The main intent of the author is to maintain the
status quo ante...but in a 'cool' feminist way....There is no
substance to her remarks........
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xgroverx on Apr 24, 2007 8:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, Just because someone consideres oneself to be a feminist, it doesn't mean this is an exclusive classification. I think there is a misperception that if someone is a feminist, they only care about women's issues and are not concerned with other issues. Just because feminist scholars and activists focus mainly on these issues, it doesn't mean that everyone who considers themselves a feminist has to do the same. This would be like saying that because someone is an environmentalist, they do not care about issues such as race and war. Environmental issues, race issues, gender issues, etc. are all important and are all interconnected.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Male feminists
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Feminism is for everybody
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freeda'all on Apr 24, 2007 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There wasn't much to the station manager's response except for pointing out that the ad was written by young women.
I'm sure the '3rd wave feminists' would like that one since it fits in very well with 'women taking control of their oppression' or whatever that type of schlock is that Valenti and Susie Bright would defend this crap with.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This fits in with '3rd wave feminism'
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Same old thing...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Same old thing...
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 24, 2007 11:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be much easier to promote the equality of women and men if you got both sides involved. The reason why feminism fails is because of it's utter failure to appeal to men (among other reasons, but this is the big one that mosr feminist don't seem to get.) Feminism's worthy cause of equality is often outshouted by "blame men for everything" feminist rhetoric. Men like myself, whom believe in promoting equality, do not want to help a cause that is always a hair trigger away from being anti-man. I don't see how feminism is going to achieve equal right for women without appealing to men in their cause.
To use a crude metaphor, it would be like an all black movement to end slavery. They obviously would have a better chance of success if they had more white abolitionists on their side.
I'm aware of the history and present injustices against women. I understand why this makes many women's blood boil and throw vicious anti-man tirades against the oppressive male regime. If your true goals are social equality between men and women, then you are going to have to 'get over it' enough to not alienate liberal men away from your cause. You will never succeed all the way with just an all girl's club. It's better to have both genders together furthering the cause of gender equality.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: Bad theory.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Feminism should try to appeal to men rather then alienate them
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: H_H
» You gonna register for the draft?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: You gonna register for the draft?
Posted by: freeda'all
» Oh by the way,
Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: The reason why 'male feminism' didn't work
Posted by: chomsky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gypsi on Apr 25, 2007 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing helps credibility like success. I own and run a small company, I own a small house with a huge lot, and a moderate mortgage Right now, it's staying power - until I have the financial means to do more, and I've run this company alone for almost 8 years. I scare some of these good ole boys half to death. Most of them. Which is cool - I live in a blue collar neighborhood. I employ younger men, my daughter's age group, because they have less problems following directions and I don't have to deal with personality issues.
I don't think we can get blue collar men to respect feminism. But I do think we can get them to respect success. (Except for golddiggers, they don't want to date the woman behind it however.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I find that winning helps credibility
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I find that winning helps credibility
Posted by: Gypsi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: denidzo on Apr 25, 2007 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tpaperny on Apr 25, 2007 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This was an important interview, but...
Posted by: fork
» an oxymoron.....only racist arrogant 'feminists' could fail to see that......
Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: This was an important (racist) interview , but...
Posted by: ekipnrut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skipp on Apr 25, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Right on!
Posted by: Bobsays
» A closer look . . .
Posted by: fork
» RE: Why can't femenist mind their own business
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 26, 2007 2:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These days the problems are more centered around community and social breakdown, not giving women more rights. In fact, focusing on these matters ignores bigger problems that will hurt us all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women are 52% of "us all"
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FeministReview on Apr 27, 2007 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminist Review blog on FFF
Posted by: freeda'all
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Apr 27, 2007 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You claimed to be a WOC...you lie............
Posted by: ekipnrut
» Typical
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faultroy on Apr 27, 2007 9:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Valenti sisters are to Feminism what Yellow Journalism is to responsible news reporting. They consistently, lie, misrepresent, twist and misinform in order to further their own personal interests. They have no interest in honest, fair and responsible presentations. Feminists like Valenti are the reason there is so much resentment to and in the feminist movement. The reason many women are loathe to call themselves feminists is because they DO have brains, and they CAN read and realize that the overt twisting and misrpresentation of facts benefits no one.
Feminist of the Valenti kind do women more harm than good, in that they actually reinforce negative feminist stereotypes and thereby relegate women to second class intellectual status because they are perceived as unable to rationally think and temper their out-of-control raging hormones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blm on Apr 28, 2007 11:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the medical establishment would agree with me that being fat is not good for a person. Obesity is a growing health problem in this country that complicates numerous other medical conditions. Now, if Valenti means "fat" in the context of "anything other than fashion model anorexic" I'd agree with her. It depresses me that this is usually presented as an issue with only 2 choices; anorexic or obese. What about fit, healthy, athletic women as the ideal?
I was a bit surprised that Valenti says there's nothing wrong with being ugly, but is quick to point out that feminists are attractive. She sounds like a politician trying to be everything to everyone.
The above notwithstanding, I like her position and will read her book as soon as I finish the 2 1/2 others currently on my list ahead of hers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Stereotypes
Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Bust magazine
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ames on Apr 29, 2007 9:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this in-fighting and criticism is ultimately counter-productive and reveals an alarming disunity among those who call ourselves feminists (men and women alike). We need to support each other in taking steps, however small or inadequate they may be, to promoting equality and women thinking for themselves. Criticising each other with 'I'm more feminist than thou' does none of this. We need to applaud and support women who attempt to do this, whatever the level of success, rather than castigating our own. By all means, debate and discuss what has been missed out or overlooked or over-simplified, but do it constructively, maybe even attempt to better cover that which you think has been missed or is imperfect. No one person in one book can give all the answers and cover all the issues. But there's no gain in the slagging match that this has become.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it's not perfect but it's a start
Posted by: fork
» RE: it's not perfect but it's a start
Posted by: Ames
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




