s/o s/o Feminism

[dangermom]

I MEANT that extremism has been necessary in the past' date=' but it's not now.[/quote']

Perhaps not in the USA (perhaps--the Pearls often make me think otherwise). But what about places in the world that have child marriage, female 'circumcision,' or forced prostitution? (Wait, that last one exists here too.) Or any one of a hundred other evils that are used specifically against females--sex-selective abortion for example...

[TXMomof4]

While I do not take the comments personally, I have on numerous occasions read posts highly critical of working mothers.

 

The built in assumption usually was that they were working to indulge in luxuries when they could devote themselves to their families if they were willing to lead a simpler life.

 

The choice of whether to work should be a woman's own choice assuming that the family already has adequate financial resources. It is irrelevant whether she works for luxury, necessity, or personal fulfillment.

 

I think most of the judgemental attitude about working moms comes in when the children AREN'T thriving, aren't doing well and neither parent chooses to make the sacrifice to provide what the child needs to do well.

My friend has a child who has been very ill with immune system issues. It isn't financially necessary for her to work, but she doesn't want to sacrifice her career even though her son has been hospitalized numerous times because of illnesses he was exposed to in daycare. I'm sure there are ways she could make both work, but she just keeps going like it isn't a big deal that he is so sick. That selfishness I will criticize. Her choice is selfish and is harming her child. I would criticize her just as severely if she was choosing to take her kid to daycare while she was going to bible study or to get her hair done or whatever.

[Cammie]

I think most of the judgemental attitude about working moms comes in when the children AREN'T thriving, aren't doing well and neither parent chooses to make the sacrifice to provide what the child needs to do well.

My friend has a child who has been very ill with immune system issues. It isn't financially necessary for her to work, but she doesn't want to sacrifice her career even though her son has been hospitalized numerous times because of illnesses he was exposed to in daycare. I'm sure there are ways she could make both work, but she just keeps going like it isn't a big deal that he is so sick. That selfishness I will criticize. Her choice is selfish and is harming her child. I would criticize her just as severely if she was choosing to take her kid to daycare while she was going to bible study or to get her hair done or whatever.

 

 

But the real question is....why aren't you criticizing the father? Isn't his choice equally selfish? Or do you think his income is necessary so he is off the hook on this?

[Cammie]

Perhaps not in the USA (perhaps--the Pearls often make me think otherwise). But what about places in the world that have child marriage, female 'circumcision,' or forced prostitution? (Wait, that last one exists here too.) Or any one of a hundred other evils that are used specifically against females--sex-selective abortion for example...

 

:iagree: Just this week, in Bangalore, on the front page of the paper, former head of Bangalore University's women's studies department, and member of their sexual harrassment committee said that women are raped because of what they are wearing. She advocates all women wearing long sleeved blouses under saris for maximum cover-up and rape protection. Astonishingly backwards and shockingly wrong-headed.

[Daisy]

But the real question is....why aren't you criticizing the father? Isn't his choice equally selfish? Or do you think his income is necessary so he is off the hook on this?

 

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

[momto2Cs]

I think there is a difference, whether there should be or not, between Feminist - bra burning, 60's, Gloria Steinham etc, and feminist as you described it. To most people I think the word brings up the first definition. For me men and women are 100% of equal value in the sight of God, just different natures and roles to play. The only part of capital F feminist I like, or admire, or resonate with, whatever, is the idea that women should be free to fulfill that role or nature however they see fit for their own life. The militancy kind of turns me off on the other hand.

 

Well said.

[Daisy]

Perhaps not in the USA (perhaps--the Pearls often make me think otherwise). But what about places in the world that have child marriage, female 'circumcision,' or forced prostitution? (Wait, that last one exists here too.) Or any one of a hundred other evils that are used specifically against females--sex-selective abortion for example...

 

I don't think feminism is the answer to those problems or to any of the sin-based problems (rape, prostitution, abuse of children, etc.) of our world.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think feminism is the answer to those problems or to any of the sin-based problems (rape, prostitution, abuse of children, etc.) of our world.

 

You don't think women having equal participation in government and politics might have an impact on how governments deal with *crimes* against women?

[Cammie]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

 

Yes, this is what divides us in a nutshell. In my world view I can't understand why it is not possible for others to imagine that the woman might be really driven in her chosen career while the dad might not really be fulfilled with his but would love to be home with the kids. Is that really so crazy? I know lots of dads who would love to spend more time at home and give up the rat race. It just makes sense to me that either one of the parties could/should stay home but it would have to be based on the needs and desires of each parent...not based on their gender.

 

Oh well, differences are what make people interesting...right?:001_smile:

[gardenmom5]

I'm gonna answer for ME.

 

I don't identify myself as a feminist. Not because I don't believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. But because 'feminist', at least in my little world, means someone who believes in/supports more than just equal rights and opportunities. In *my* world, identifying as a feminist means you support things I don't support, plain and simple.

 

And as for what I bolded in your quote; I've NEVER seen that here. Interesting how differently we all see things.

:iagree: I grew up with "feminists", of the kind that promoted things I absolutely disagree with - and they did it in the name of feminisim.

My "non-feminist" friends - male and female, are far more RESPECTFUL of women than my "feminist" acquatinences, who are full of male-bashing hatred.

[annandatje]

I think most of the judgemental attitude about working moms comes in when the children AREN'T thriving, aren't doing well and neither parent chooses to make the sacrifice to provide what the child needs to do well.

My friend has a child who has been very ill with immune system issues. It isn't financially necessary for her to work, but she doesn't want to sacrifice her career even though her son has been hospitalized numerous times because of illnesses he was exposed to in daycare. I'm sure there are ways she could make both work, but she just keeps going like it isn't a big deal that he is so sick. That selfishness I will criticize. Her choice is selfish and is harming her child. I would criticize her just as severely if she was choosing to take her kid to daycare while she was going to bible study or to get her hair done or whatever.

 

Why couldn't the father quit working to take care of child? Why is the mother expected to do so? Perhaps her job is more stable, has better compensation, or better benefits. Or maybe both need to work to cover the copays and deductibles of a chronically ill child. Maybe they both work because they fear losing insurance from job termination in this shaky economy. Maybe she wishes to keep her career for security in event of divorce or death of spouse. It can be very difficult to re-establish oneself in their career after leaving work.

 

Admittedly I am a tad tender about this subject since I never completely quit working altogether and was quizzed by a few acquaintances about why I worked during years it was not necessary. The reason is that my early years were spent in environment of extreme poverty hostile to women and children; thus, I never want to lose my ability to be financially independent. When women stop working after marrying and starting family, that choice comes at high price that can have lifelong financial ramifications. I wish to avoid being one of those women who feel trapped in an abusive or loveless marriage because she feels she cannot make it on her own emotionally or financially.

 

It is unfortunate that motherhood, one of the most important jobs is the least valued economically in our society. I do not know what the answers or solutions are, but I trust each woman of intelligence and reason to determine the right answer for her own situation.

Edited January 5, 2012 by annandatje

[T'smom]

Perhaps not in the USA (perhaps--the Pearls often make me think otherwise). But what about places in the world that have child marriage, female 'circumcision,' or forced prostitution? (Wait, that last one exists here too.) Or any one of a hundred other evils that are used specifically against females--sex-selective abortion for example...

 

Interesting point. But I don't think that feminist extremism here in the US is going to have much of an impact on female circumcision in some other country. All of those things do deserve to be fought in extreme fashions, but I don't think the 'feminist movement' is accomplishing that.

The Pearls are just freaks. But women have the right to either listen to them or write them off as crackpots. (I know someone is going to say that kids raised in that environment don't have those rights, but I would say that is an issue of child abuse, not of a woman not having rights.)

[MamaT]

I'm gonna answer for ME.

 

I don't identify myself as a feminist. Not because I don't believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. But because 'feminist', at least in my little world, means someone who believes in/supports more than just equal rights and opportunities. In *my* world, identifying as a feminist means you support things I don't support, plain and simple.

 

And as for what I bolded in your quote; I've NEVER seen that here. Interesting how differently we all see things.

 

:iagree: With this.

 

:iagree: I grew up with "feminists", of the kind that promoted things I absolutely disagree with - and they did it in the name of feminisim.

My "non-feminist" friends - male and female, are far more RESPECTFUL of women than my "feminist" acquatinences, who are full of male-bashing hatred.

 

:iagree: And with this. I believe in equal opportunity and pay for women, but do not identify myself as a feminist.

[msk]

While I do not take the comments personally, I have on numerous occasions read posts highly critical of working mothers.

 

The built in assumption usually was that they were working to indulge in luxuries when they could devote themselves to their families if they were willing to lead a simpler life.

 

 

That's the kind of thing I was referring to earlier-- no one has attacked me personally, but this type of negative description of working moms who don't "have to" work has popped up every couple of months just in the year or so I've been hanging around here. I don't think it's a majority opinion on the boards or anything, but it's definitely out there.

 

A strong belief that a woman's place really is ideally in the home and that *choosing* anything else is "selfish" when women do it clashes with much of what I see as equal rights regarding work and family, and thus feminism. Others probably see this differently, though.

[My3Boys]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

:iagree: No lead balloons here!

[jenangelcat]

That may be your take on feminism, but it's not what was taught to me as feminism both directly and indirectly in the 80s, 90s. I went to a very feminist college, even took a few women's studies classes there. What was taught as feminism was indeed man hating, bra burning, sexual liberation (= promiscuity) anti-maternalism, anti marriage, etc.. That's not for me... at all. Women who had children at the cost of career were looked down on. Women who stayed home with their children were a disgrace. Quite frankly I've heard more hateful comments about women from feminists than I've ever heard from men, with the exception of the taliban.

 

I rarely ever see that brand of feminism. I've asked about what feminism means on several active feminist forums and in real life and "my take" is based on what the majority has told me. Maybe it's a generational thing?

[kathymuggle]

 

FWIW, other things about me (which I do not see as relevant to feminism):

I'm a SAHM, I'm an athiest, I'm a lesbian, I have a great relationship with my father, grandfathers and uncles, I'm pro-choice, I like men, and I have no plans to return to a career outside the home

 

it is interesting how feminists are all painted with the same brush, when really we are not....

 

here is my list:

 

I am a feminist. I am a theist, but with no religious affiliations. I am straight. I am pro-life more than pro-choice (deeply troubled by abortion - but not sure it should be outlawed). I work part time and have no plans to work full time. I like men, liked my father, sometimes don't wear a bra but have never burned one.

[TXMomof4]

But the real question is....why aren't you criticizing the father? Isn't his choice equally selfish? Or do you think his income is necessary so he is off the hook on this?

 

He does have the better job and better benefits. If it were better option for him to be home I'd be all for that. He has more flexibility in his schedule so he stays with the child when he's in the hospital and if going to daycare is absolutely impossible. She has made it clear that she enjoys her job and isn't willing to give it up.

I know plenty of working moms whose children do fine and thrive, but in a situation like the one above, I am completely willing to find fault with a mother whose 'fulfillment' is more important than her child or the rest of the family's financial stability.

[Tarreymere]

I think having to be a primary parent AND a wage-earner is abusive to the person in that situation whether that parent is male or female. I've been there as a working mom and it is TOUGH to earn a living and be the primary homemaker and primary parent. I don't think this is a bash on working moms to say that it is hard, because it IS hard. It is exhausting adn stressful, and you never feel like you are doing enough. I also don't think that anyone can ever fully understand another person's life well enough to determine whether or not that person 'has' to work, and if a person wants to be at home I am all about offering any advice I may have to help make that happen just as I am happy to offer advice to a working mom from my own experience of being a working mom trying to juggle multiple responsibilities.

[kathymuggle]

Why couldn't the father quit working to take care of child? Why is the mother expected to do so? Perhaps her job is more stable, has better compensation, or better benefits. Or maybe both need to work to cover the copays and deductibles of a chronically ill child. Maybe they both work because they fear losing insurance from job termination in this shaky economy. Maybe she wishes to keep her career for security in event of divorce or death of spouse. It can be very difficult to re-establish oneself in their career after leaving work.

 

Admittedly I am a tad tender about this subject since I never completely quit working altogether and was quizzed by a few acquaintances about why I worked during years it was not necessary. The reason is that my early years were spent in environment of extreme poverty hostile to women and children; thus, I never want to lose my ability to be financially independent. When women stop working after marrying and starting family, that choice comes at high price that can have lifelong financial ramifications. I wish to avoid being one of those women who feel trapped in an abusive or loveless marriage because she feels she cannot make it on her own emotionally or financially.

 

It is unfortunate that motherhood, one of the most important jobs is the least valued economically in our society. I do not know what the answers or solutions are, but I trust each woman of intelligence and reason to determine the right answer for her own situation.

 

Yes - but this post is in response to a woman who would not quit work when she had a child who was repeatedly quite sick from daycare.

 

I do not expect the mother to automatically quit work - but assuming they can feed people and pay the bills if someone quits, someone should quit. It should not automatically be the mother (and the assumption still held by society that it should be the mother is unfair), but one of the parents. Kids do come first. I think it is possible to be a feminist and put kids first.

 

Edited at add a personal experience: I held a position when my youngest was 12-18 months. After her second bout of pneumonia, I quit. I was the person to quit for a variety of reasons - but the biggest is I earned less, and I wanted to. Remaining at work was hardly fair to my daughter, her daycare provider or my employer (as I was constantly calling in sick to watch a sick child).

Edited January 5, 2012 by kathymuggle

[simka2]

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

I am starting to wonder if this is an old-fashioned idea or a contemporary one. When did the term "breadwinner" originate? My understanding is that it is an industrial revolution creation.

[AdventureMoms]

it is interesting how feminists are all painted with the same brush, when really we are not....

 

here is my list:

 

I am a feminist. I am a theist, but with no religious affiliations. I am straight. I am pro-life more than pro-choice (deeply troubled by abortion - but not sure it should be outlawed). I work part time and have no plans to work full time. I like men, liked my father, sometimes don't wear a bra but have never burned one.

 

Ha! Perhaps I should add to my list - I always wear a bra and have never burned one. Or considered it to be an instrument of oppression.

[annandatje]

I think having to be a primary parent AND a wage-earner is abusive to the person in that situation whether that parent is male or female. I've been there as a working mom and it is TOUGH to earn a living and be the primary homemaker and primary parent. I don't think this is a bash on working moms to say that it is hard, because it IS hard. It is exhausting adn stressful, and you never feel like you are doing enough. I also don't think that anyone can ever fully understand another person's life well enough to determine whether or not that person 'has' to work, and if a person wants to be at home I am all about offering any advice I may have to help make that happen just as I am happy to offer advice to a working mom from my own experience of being a working mom trying to juggle multiple responsibilities.

 

Darn tootin'!

 

It is truly unjust when mothers who work full time or homeschool full time have to pull a second shift at home. If the mother stays busy all day with paying work or homeschooling, why should the father not have to pitch in on second shift too? It is indeed a callous situation that I would go to marital war over if necessary. I am not saying that it has to be tit for tat but the workload should be equitably spread out over time.

[annandatje]

Ha! Perhaps I should add to my list - I always wear a bra and have never burned one. Or considered it to be an instrument of oppression.

 

 

I'll just say I do not want to be responsible for setting a five alarm fire so I choose to wear, not burn :) .

[dangermom]

Interesting point. But I don't think that feminist extremism here in the US is going to have much of an impact on female circumcision in some other country. All of those things do deserve to be fought in extreme fashions' date=' but I don't think the 'feminist movement' is accomplishing that. [/quote']

Are we talking about just feminists in the US? This is a multi-national board, so I meant it in a multi-national sense.

 

The Pearls are just freaks. But women have the right to either listen to them or write them off as crackpots. (I know someone is going to say that kids raised in that environment don't have those rights, but I would say that is an issue of child abuse, not of a woman not having rights.)

One the main problems I have with the philosophies endorsed by people on the Pearl end of the spectrum is how much burden is placed on the older daughters in the families. They are given that burden because they are female, and they have little choice in the matter. But I have plenty of other issues with the Pears too!

[ChristyB in TN]

I recently read an article about women of different generations and their attempt to identify with feminism and even define it. Fascinating stuff, I can't remember where I read it or who wrote it. I'm in my early 40's and I think I land in a generation where I can see the divisions among us. Younger women are having a hard time buying into all the rhetoric involved, this seems to be true with their politics, too. They don't' want to be labeled as this or that, they can't even imagine anyone not feeling their opinions mattered less than a man's! I actually grew up in a household where I had no clue that anyone born since the late 1800's had ever been passed over for a job or held back because of gender, thank God. However, abortion laws crept into the argument, the fact that men might want to get custody in a divorce, the fact that everyone really IS equal in the eyes of the law, etc. made it all more complicated than it seemed to be in teh 60's. I'm a feminist in many ways, I am anti abortion AND anti death penalty - I'm anti death when we can help it. So, I can't really identify with feminist causes, I wish there was a separation somehow with a new term. In my volunteer work I get to see a lot of dads who ought to have custody of children and they really do have to work an awful lot harder at convincing a judge of it than a woman has to. All things still are very unequal but I think we are making progress. As for anyone feeling differently for religious reasons, I support and respect them. It is good to live in a country where they can feel however they want and live in a household where one person is in charge of all decision making for whatever reason. Good for them. Awesome to live in a place where we can choose. I own a business with my husband who was raised by a single (widowed) mom and two older sisters. You can't find a man who believes any more strongly that women have had to fight too hard for equal rights! :D We do have clients who don't really want to deal with me because (usually senior citizens) I may not be able to understand their circumstances or maybe because I'm a woman... it's cool. I don't take it personally. Okay, since I've rambled on and on...I'm a feminist who is pro life.

[msk]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

Thank you for saying this. Although I have an entirely different opinion, I appreciate your being open about the underlying reason for your beliefs. For some reason if people are open about things like this I have no trouble agreeing to disagree, it's when I can't figure out their reasoning or motivations (or suspect they're trying to hide them) that things get weird. I will remind myself to self-identify as a feminist up front when I jump into a discussion like this in the future.

[kathymuggle]

I also don't think that anyone can ever fully understand another person's life well enough to determine whether or not that person 'has' to work...

 

and then there are naughty feminists like me who just "want" to work :D (albeit part time in my case)

 

Seriously, though, as long as the pros outweigh the cons for your family, I don't judge (there are a few exceptions - like a repeatedly ill child). Whatever floats your boat.

Edited January 5, 2012 by kathymuggle

[kathymuggle]

Darn tootin'!

 

It is truly unjust when mothers who work full time or homeschool full time have to pull a second shift at home. If the mother stays busy all day with paying work or homeschooling, why should the father not have to pitch in on second shift too? It is indeed a callous situation that I would go to marital war over if necessary. I am not saying that it has to be tit for tat but the workload should be equitably spread out over time.

 

Heck, yes. At the crux of it: this is why I do not work full - time.

 

I would expect my husband to put in a second shift as well if i worked full time, and while he theoretically would be willing, I just do not see it happening.

 

2 parents working full time sounds exhausting to me.

 

We do know women, even in families where both parents work, put in more childcare and housework hours. I can dig up a link if anyone needs it.

[NicAnn]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

I don't think feminism is the answer to those problems or to any of the sin-based problems (rape, prostitution, abuse of children, etc.) of our world.

 

:iagree:

[annandatje]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

I know of a few families who share what I am assuming are your religious and philosophical viewpoints toward traditional gender roles and family life. However, sometimes, families find themselves in situation where the mother's paying work is considerably more lucrative and stable than that of the father. Those families have favored pragmatism over principle; I don't know how to word it but it definitely is not intended as snark or gotcha. As I said earlier, generally I trust intelligent reasonable adults to make decisions that are best for them nor would I consider those decisions a betrayal of their principles.

Edited January 5, 2012 by annandatje

[Leav97]

The reason we are not criticizing the father in the above scenario is because we are not feminists. LOL.

 

We buy into that whole old-fashioned idea that the man should be the breadwinner if at all possible and the mom should be, gasp, domestic. We actually believe that God created women to be the nurturers. It just makes common sense to us that it would be the mom who stayed home.

 

Yeah, I know that is going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

My DH could be the bread winner. But, I make twice what he can and frankly he is better at being domestic. He's a better cook and he's better at handling multiple kids.

 

A families decisions are rarely as simple as who has boy parts and who has girl parts. Most people I know IRL don't discuss all of the details of their finances, family dynamics, decision making process, ... They'll say something like "That doesn't work for my family" or "We both need to be working".

[LizzyBee]

I'm gonna answer for ME.

 

I don't identify myself as a feminist. Not because I don't believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. But because 'feminist', at least in my little world, means someone who believes in/supports more than just equal rights and opportunities. In *my* world, identifying as a feminist means you support things I don't support, plain and simple.

 

And as for what I bolded in your quote; I've NEVER seen that here. Interesting how differently we all see things.

 

:iagree: "Feminist" implies certain things that I don't agree with, so I stopped identifying myself as a feminist many years ago.

[ChristyB in TN]

I think we are definitely seeing the differences in the mere definition of feminism in all of the responses right here. I guess it is one of the biggest examples of generational and cultural differences in definitions I come across.

As for the talk about working full time, home schooling, and having a two parent household who does all of the above, it is very hard. We wouldn't have it any other way. I don't know how I would have felt about it when my kids were very young, though, I stayed home with them then. Because we homeschooled and were VERY active in sports and such, my husband and I still had to "pull a second shift" at night and clean and cook. It was the hardest and most wonderful time of our lives. :) Now my teenage daughter is the only one homeschooling and she drives so it helps cut down on the work load a lot.

[HSMom2One]

I think there is a huge difference, as some have pointed out, between militant, radical feminism and a more moderate version of feminism. I was there in the 70's and it wasn't pretty at all. In one decade we saw the pendulum swing from one end to the other. One of the big changes was the adoption of abortion rights into the whole feminist package. That was totally opposite of what the original feminists, the sufferagettes, stood for. Did you know that they were completely against abortion? They stood for the rights of women and children - born and unborn. They weren't just promoting women's rights to vote, they also opposed violence against women and children and a long list of other things.

 

As a Christian, I believe that God sees male and female equally, yet we do have unique characteristics and roles in life. Neither gender is better than the other. The women's movement opened up a lot of things for us that we now take for granted - things that I believe were intended by God to be our freedoms all along - so we should be thankful for the changes that came about. But because many of us don't stand for "The Right to Choose", we tend to shy away from being labeled as a feminist. If I were, I'd have to say I'd be a feminist in the sense of Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Alice Paul and others who believed in the rights of women, but were all pro-life. These women are actually my heroines!

 

If anyone is interested in learning more about these things, there is a nonprofit organization called Feminists for Life that could be checked into. (feministsforlife.org)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[mlbuchina]

That is what feminism means. Unfortunately, the vocal minority bashes sahm's and ruins it for the rest of us. I'm a sahm btw with no plans to ever return to work. This is why more (non-extremist) people need to vocally identify as feminist. Either that or we need to come up with a new less baggage heavy term.

 

Why do I need to be labelled at all? Why can I not be known for my character and accomplishments?

[3littlekeets]

Why do I need to be labelled at all? Why can I not be known for my character and accomplishments?

 

 

Though I applaud the thought, we need words to describe ideologies. We need to understand how people think and what beliefs are salient to them. That is like saying, "Why do I need to be called a Christian, Athiest, or Muslim? I just want to be known for my beliefs." We use labels to help make sense of our world.

[*********]

Though I applaud the thought, we need words to describe ideologies. We need to understand how people think and what beliefs are salient to them. That is like saying, "Why do I need to be called a Christian, Athiest, or Muslim? I just want to be known for my beliefs." We use labels to help make sense of our world.

 

So true. I think the frustration is that, nowadays, saying one is a "Christian" or "Feminist" or practically anything else doesn't mean much, because everyone feels entitled to define things however they see fit.

[kathymuggle]

I think there is a huge difference, as some have pointed out, between militant, radical feminism and a more moderate version of feminism. I was there in the 70's and it wasn't pretty at all. In one decade we saw the pendulum swing from one end to the other. One of the big changes was the adoption of abortion rights into the whole feminist package. That was totally opposite of what the original feminists, the sufferagettes, stood for. Did you know that they were completely against abortion? They stood for the rights of women and children - born and unborn. They weren't just promoting women's rights to vote, they also opposed violence against women and children and a long list of other things.

 

As a Christian, I believe that God sees male and female equally, yet we do have unique characteristics and roles in life. Neither gender is better than the other. The women's movement opened up a lot of things for us that we now take for granted - things that I believe were intended by God to be our freedoms all along - so we should be thankful for the changes that came about. But because many of us don't stand for "The Right to Choose", we tend to shy away from being labeled as a feminist. If I were, I'd have to say I'd be a feminist in the sense of Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Alice Paul and others who believed in the rights of women, but were all pro-life. These women are actually my heroines!

 

If anyone is interested in learning more about these things, there is a nonprofit organization called Feminists for Life that could be checked into. (feministsforlife.org)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

 

Nice post - and thanks for the link.

[mlbuchina]

Though I applaud the thought, we need words to describe ideologies. We need to understand how people think and what beliefs are salient to them. That is like saying, "Why do I need to be called a Christian, Athiest, or Muslim? I just want to be known for my beliefs." We use labels to help make sense of our world.

 

Yes, I understand this to be true.

 

However, why get disgruntled if I don't want to label myself with a label they want me to? I mean, really, who cares and what business is it of their's anyway? :D (Not being snarky, trying to be funny. Tone doesn't come across in text very well.)

[mlbuchina]

So true. I think the frustration is that, nowadays, saying one is a "Christian" or "Feminist" or practically anything else doesn't mean much, because everyone feels entitled to define things however they see fit.

 

:iagree:

[jenangelcat]

Why do I need to be labelled at all? Why can I not be known for my character and accomplishments?

 

Because it helps with change. Women are still not given equal rights in North America. Labeling helps to mainstream ideas.

 

I don't like that a little boy who happens to like pink and princesses is labelled a "princess boy". It would be great if he could just like them and be done with it. Unfortunately it's the only way to for people to see that it's normal. Same for celebrities that refuse to confirm whether or not they are gay. It's their right to not label themselves but it would help others in the long run if they did.

[mlbuchina]

I think there is a huge difference, as some have pointed out, between militant, radical feminism and a more moderate version of feminism. I was there in the 70's and it wasn't pretty at all. In one decade we saw the pendulum swing from one end to the other. One of the big changes was the adoption of abortion rights into the whole feminist package. That was totally opposite of what the original feminists, the sufferagettes, stood for. Did you know that they were completely against abortion? They stood for the rights of women and children - born and unborn. They weren't just promoting women's rights to vote, they also opposed violence against women and children and a long list of other things.

 

As a Christian, I believe that God sees male and female equally, yet we do have unique characteristics and roles in life. Neither gender is better than the other. The women's movement opened up a lot of things for us that we now take for granted - things that I believe were intended by God to be our freedoms all along - so we should be thankful for the changes that came about. But because many of us don't stand for "The Right to Choose", we tend to shy away from being labeled as a feminist. If I were, I'd have to say I'd be a feminist in the sense of Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Alice Paul and others who believed in the rights of women, but were all pro-life. These women are actually my heroines!

 

If anyone is interested in learning more about these things, there is a nonprofit organization called Feminists for Life that could be checked into. (feministsforlife.org)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

 

Thank you for this information. I will admit that the only thing I know about feminist/feminism is negative. The general "women are better because they are women/men are pigs" thought. This is an area I need to become better educated in.

 

I would like to ask, does being thankful for the rights we have now mean that I must identify myself as a feminist? This is the only way to show my thankfulness? If I don't call myself a feminist, then I am somehow ungrateful? I am truly asking and not trying to be mean or anything. It has just seemed to be this way in my experiences. I have been looked down upon and thought of as stupid or inferior in some way because of my decisions.

 

In fact, just today my MIL was asking me about jobs I could get when my dh retires from the navy (in 3 years. YEA!). She knows I plan on homeschooling through high school, but she is forever trying to find me a job. :glare:

[Bootsie]

I try to avoid using the term "feminist" because it has such a different meaning to different people. I had a conversation at work with one person who at the end of the conversation said, "I am so glad to find out that you are not one of those feminists." Later the same day, I was talking to another colleague. Our conversation was almost identical to the conversation I had earlier inthe day and the second colleague said, "I am so glad to find out that you a feminist."

[3littlekeets]

I'm going to take a stab at this.

 

I think just fighting for equal opportunities and treatment for women isn't quite hitting the mark and isn't quite enough. That's my criticism of feminism. To me, it hasn't taken into account the realities of being a woman. Granted there are all kinds of configurations to being a woman (married, unmarried, old, young, working, not working, children, no children, etc.). But the fact is, women get pregnant and have children whether the man sticks around or not and that has a huge impact on her opportunities in life. It's not good enough to just say she can have the same shot in the world as a man by placing her at the same starting line as a man (who will never ever be pregnant).

 

I get the impression that the original feminists (and even the current feminists) have failed to address the fact that women are not equal to men because of the realities of biology. And no I'm not saying unequal in brains, worth, etc. Their realities are generally different and to treat someone fairly is to treat them differently (based on those different realities).

 

I still call myself a feminist. To me feminism is about having the freedom to choose. I don't think all women fully have that (of course neither do all men).

 

 

Well, you ought to read on third wave feminism, which encompasses many of your thoughts. It argues that we need to be sensitive to fluid nature of gender and recognize the social constructions that exist with and apart from biological imperatives. Judith Butler is dense, but enlightening!

[3littlekeets]

Ah cool. Which of her books do you recommend?

 

 

Gender Trouble is her most notable book. It is hard to muddle through, at first. But if you stick with it, the ideas are profound. Even if you disagree with Butler, you will have a much better understanding of the history and factions within feminist thought.

[Serenade]

We make decisions together. If we can't come to a consensus - very rare - then I do generally let him make the final decision. But that is due to the fact that he is very logical and methodical and I tend to be impulsive. Not because he is male.

 

This is how we do things in my house, too.

[jenangelcat]

Here's the wiki blurb on third wave feminism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

[Pretty in Pink]

Okay, so those saying that they don't identify as feminists because some feminists are very militant, do you hesitate to identify with your religion because some members are extremists? Yes. I am a Christian but am almost loathe to say so if the subject comes up with a new aquaintance.

 

I'm starting to think feminism needs to be re-branded. Perhaps.

/

[scrappyhappymama]

I do not identify as a feminist. I do believe in equal pay for equal work. I believe women should have the same educational opportunities and benefits as men. I am grateful to the suffragettes and those who fought for civil rights for the benefits they have afforded me and most other women today. I had my degree long before my husband did and out-earned him for many years and worked full time and cared for our young children while he completed school. I am blessed to have a husband who respected me enough to allow me to choose whether to continue to pursue my career or to choose to give it up completely to raise our family. In the same way, I am grateful to those who fought for civil rights and have made it possible for me to enjoy a bi-racial marriage with hardly a ripple in society.

 

However, there are several points that I consider integral to the label of feminist to which I will never agree. I think that the man-hating element, as well as the folks who attempted to deny the differences between men and women which extend beyond difference in genitalia, have done a great disservice to the cause. As a mother of four sons, I will never accept the status quo that is now commonly accepted and propagated in modern media of men as the bumbling, incompetent idiots while women are the cool-headed, consummate professionals. I'd much rather prefer an honest dialogue on the genuine merits and dispositions of both men and women, while respecting and encouraging folks of either gender in whatever productive pursuit they are passionate about.

 

It is when the push for equal rights tips over into specific racial or gender preferences that I must abandon my support for the cause. Inequality and segregation of resources and opportunities is immoral, in my opinion, regardless of which race or gender under discussion.

 

Interestingly, the only backlash I have ever experienced in my bi-racial marriage has been from isolated members of my husband's family, who believe their eligible young men and women should "keep it within their race." Similarly, the only backlash I have ever experienced as a woman, giving up a lucrative career to stay home and raise and educate my children has been from other career women or family members who see my choice as a waste of intelligence, experience and education. In both cases, the very groups that fought for equal rights for themselves now have members who denigrate those who have the temerity to exercise said rights in a way they do not approve of.

 

In addition to these objections, I am firmly pro-life and it seems to me that at this time, feminism is so very intertwined with the pro-choice movement that a feminist is simply presumed to agree. For this reason alone, despite the number of friends I have who self-identify as feminist and pro-life, nevertheless I could never accept the label for myself.