Has anything changed since the feminist movement of the seventies, or are we still fighting the same battles?

 

In my view, it’s a mixed bag. Women in the West are generally more economically independent and have more varied career opportunities than were available 40 years ago (though most non-western women are not so fortunate). On the whole, I think women are less willing to accept sexist behaviour from their partners and expect them to pull their weight more on the domestic front (though there’s still an imbalance in the division of labour, with women taking more responsibility for housekeeping and childcare).

 

On the other hand, I feel that we’ve gone backwards when it comes to the objectification of women’s bodies. Back in the seventies we complained about things like the Miss World contest and ads with women draped over cars and motorbikes, but in retrospect that was really tame stuff compared to the commodification of the female body that goes on now. It makes me feel like a prude (and I’m not), but I feel shocked at the way women’s liberation seems to have resulted in sexual images of women being used to sell everything from shoe polish to chewing gum. And the claim is that it’s all an expression of women’s freedom. And don’t get me onto the subject of fashion – especially girls wearing cripplingly high heels and bum-hugging skirts and bare midriffs in deepest winter. And I don’t see much in the way of feminist critiques of all this, so maybe feminism’s moved on and I’m just stuck in the seventies.

 

What are the issues for todays' feminists?

Tags: feminist-challenges, feminists, seventies, sexual-objects, women

Views: 40

Replies to This Discussion

  • I was told that if I were to lose my virginity before I was married, that I'd lose value. Because apparently I was a house.

Car.  A car loses a huge percentage of its value once it's driven off of the lot.  Better metaphor for their crap.

Yeah. And it gets worse when it parlays into marriage. They talked alot about how God can give you grace and restore you if you had a divorce(or lost your virginity before marriage).Because even though you are a whore and possible made your husband divorce you because you let yourself go and not let him do what he wants etc etc etc etc.

They had fun with the bait and switch(promise grace and acceptance but what you really get is a bunch of rumors and people coming on to you(who are married) because obviously since you lost your virginity you're just slutting it up...

To which I state: what needs to be restored is the lost time I spent listening to your drivel. Now if you kindly give me back the money I gave.....

 

Joseph, it is crap, most assuredly...it is. But you'd be surprised how well it works. These women are being told day in and day out that they should marry to have sex, but not go on dates because the guy would think you are loose. If you do go on a date it has to have a chaperoned. And if you like the guy you shouldn't tell him or show him because he might not be the ONE god has for you. And when you get the ONE, you better be submissive to keep him. Basically it's "manipulate your way into his heart with GOD". I don't think all churches were like that, but the one I attended was like that with some crazy a** rules. Sadly, what I said was true.

  • Yeah. And it gets worse when it parlays into marriage. They talked alot about how God can give you grace and restore you if you had a divorce(or lost your virginity before marriage).Because even though you are a whore and possible made your husband divorce you because you let yourself go and not let him do what he wants etc etc etc etc.

And this is before you get into stuff like hymen reconstructive surgery.  What the fuck is up with that?  I mean ... what the hell?

 

  • They had fun with the bait and switch(promise grace and acceptance but what you really get is a bunch of rumors and people coming on to you(who are married) because obviously since you lost your virginity you're just slutting it up...

Reminds me of an episode of The Atheist Experience or Non-Prophets Radio.  Can't remember which one it was.  Matt Dillahunty was talking about the purity rings, back when he was a Southern Baptist.  Apparently girls who had lost their virginity could still get a purity ring, just a different colored one ... and all of the boys in the church paid a great deal of attention to which color ring a girl was wearing.

 

 

I'm right there, with the earlier post about more women getting into math and the sciences.  My girlfriend is just finishing up a masters degree in library-science.  She's a bigger geek than I am.

 

She was raised by hippies, too, so she's even more relaxed about sex than I am.  It's definitely the way to go.

This is what depresses me. It's the same shit we were concerned with forty years ago and we seem to have achieved nothing.

Really?  Nothing?  Hmmmm...

 

National Women's Caucus?
Title IX?
Roe v Wade?
Billie Jean King?
The United Nations World Conference on International Women's Year?
Admissiong to military academies?
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act?
Sandra Day O’Connor?
Take Our Daughters to Work Day?
Janet Reno?
Women’s National Basketball Association?
RU-486?
Condoleezza Rice?
Nancy Pelosi?
Lilly Ledbetter?

I am not a feminist. I don’t practice any form of identity politics. I’m fighting for the liberation of all of humanity. That’s not to say that I don’t support feminist struggles against the crimes of the capitalist system, but they do not have leadership with proper vision to win women's liberation. They haven’t discovered the root to their oppression and are simply hacking away at branches that will always grow back as long as individuals are allowed to own the means of production.

I only pasted the first part of the RCP’s Declaration in this thread, the Declaration goes on to really dig into why: "This declaration calls out the moral and ideological bankruptcy of those who claim the mantle of women’s advance but mean only “getting in” on the world as it is—waging what can only be a losing and perverse battle for the “right” of women to have an equal share in running an empire, exploiting others, or even down to the humiliating level of owning and marketing their own bodies as sexual commodities."
---
I believe the calls to censor Bruce reek of liberalism. Yes Bruce has a very messed up orientation regarding these issues and is clearly under capitalist leadership, but the reason that the liberals on this thread can’t deal with the substance of some of his arguments is that he is correctly pointing out that most people who label themselves feminist are practicing a form of identity politics..you know like the Nazis did. There is a HUGE difference between wanting what’s best for “me and my people” and wanting what’s best for all of humanity, the former is closer to Nazism or the current fascist movement here in the frontyard, the latter is Communism. Yes, communists have made this same mistake of attempting to censor opposing views in the past.. and it was a mistake. Mao said "where there is oppression there will be resistance". You will not censor ideas out of existence, you have to engage opposing ideas as they are put forth by their most ardent advocates, otherwise when you hold state power you will find that your only effective method for dealing with those ideas and holding onto power will be through armed force.

Bruce has refused to engage the substance in the Declaration. If I were going to have to deal with him, every time he tried to put forth his line I would call people's attention to his refusal to engage substance.

Bruce has refused to engage the substance in the Declaration. If I were going to have to deal with him, every time he tried to put forth his line I would call people's attention to his refusal to engage substance.

 

Your Declaration is mostly just a political beatnik poem with little substance, and your final conclusion is little more than a bald assertion.  I think he engaged it as much as it warranted.

I don't personally think communism's the solution, but I think your diagnosis of the problem is spot on, Sendero Rojo.

It seems pretty certain that the feminist cause was co-opted by capitalism long ago - hence the terribly distorted interpretation of "women's liberation" that feeds the commodification of the female body.

 

Yeah - Bruce's limitation is that he thinks it's all about equal opportunities and parity of income, which are really only the superficial aspects of a deep social ailment.

 

In all my years, I've met very few capitalistic feminists, but then again, I do not reside in the land of Sarah Palin, although I am a stone's throw away from her. In Canada feminists often ally with the NDP (New Democratic Party). Since Reagan years, capitalism has been making headway in all 'identity' groups, women, youth, visible minorities and sexual minorities. Capitalism is, frankly, a plague, a pestilence. I'm glad I know practically no feminists who follow it, however, I know tons of equalists who like capitalism ;)

Me, I vote Green, all the time, since as long as I've been voting. Science first, ideologies second.

In all your years, you've met very few capitalistic feminists?
That's kind of like Ahmadinejad claiming there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

Are you going to seriously claim that the majority of Feminists, or even the majority of feminists you know do not believe in private ownership of property and businesses?  Are you going to claim that private ownership of property is a "plague" and a "pestilence"?  What kind of work do you do?  Where do you live?
Anywhere you don't...

Not an answer.

Are you claiming, in fact, that most of your associates oppose the ownership of private property?

Yes, or no?

Or are you just professing to oppose capitalism because it sounds like a cool thing to say?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service