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

As a communist I do not oppose the ownership of private property, I oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

It's correct that the Green Party are apologists for capitalism and the vast majority of "feminists" don't oppose capitalism or even have anything approaching a correct understanding of the true nature of the capitalist system (that only the science of MLM can provide.) There are many who claim to be anti-capitalists, but their line doesn't see beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois "right" and/or they lack leadership with proper vision to stand a chance of defeating the capitalist class dictatorship.

Yeah, and how'd that work out in...

1)  Afghanistan

2)  Cambodia
3)  Mongolia
4)  Yemen
5)  Bulgaria
6)  Czech Republic
7)  East Germany
8)  Hungary
9)  Poland
10) Romania
11) Slovakia


I'm not going to derail this thread. See my post on this site entitled "Democracy or Dictatorship?". Socialism has only existed two times: Russia from 1917-1949 and China from 1949-1976.. communism can only be achieved worldwide. I just explained how many people who claim to be anti-capitalist, but ..anyways you've already said you're not listening to me long ago..go on back to your world that is able to simply dismiss facts such as that a woman is beaten by her male "partner" every 15 seconds here in the frontyard and overall the most unsafe place a woman can be at is in her own home...if you're fine with the culture that accepts this, that's your choice, but do know that there are millions of people even here in the frontyard of the empire itself who are not fine with it and when that anger and rage is properly channeled and enabled by leadership with proper vision then we will bring about a society in which the oppression, subjugation, degradation of and violence against women will not be tolerated and the instruments of the state will be used to combat it.

Oh btw.. How's capitalism working out for humanity and the Earth? We live in a world where we've long passed the ability to produce adequate food, shelter, clean water and health care for all, yet see people dieing all around from treatable conditions. What's the conditions like for women under capitalism?

"...go on back to your world that is able to simply dismiss facts such as that a woman is beaten by her male "partner" every 15 seconds"
...which, of course NEVER occurred in Russia from 1917-1949 or China from 1949-1976...
Yes, China treated its women SO well.  Why, abortions were not only allowed, they were enforced!  Now THAT's a health care plan.
And Capitalism is working out very well.  Turns out, its actually much more efficient at using resources than, say, Russia from 1917-1949 or China from 1949-1976.

OK, now this forum IS being actually "derailed", as this discussion has nothing to do with Feminism.

Sendero, if you start a new thread regarding this on an appropriate forum, it will be my pleasure to make you look foolish.

Domestic violence against women was all but eliminated during socialism in China, as was prostitution and pornography. I can’t speak about women’s issues in the Russian revolution as I’m no expert on that, but I have heard that much more needed to be done in regards to women’s issues then. MLM is a science, not a doctrine, we learn from our mistakes and shortcomings and the revolution in China made major strides in addressing women’s issues, but even more improvements can be made the next time the common people hold state power. Furthermore socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, socialism doesn’t promise to transform everyone overnight, especially those from the privileged stratas under capitalism.


For those who’re interested in learning about what life was like for women during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China I highly suggest hearing professor Dongping Han’s Book TV talk, especially in the Q&A where professor Bai Di speaks about her experience growing up in the GPCR, and her talk as well, both linked below:

 

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11082/The+Unknown+Cultural+Revolution+L...

 

http://www.archive.org/details/RediscoveringChinasCulturalRevolutio...

There are some greens which are apologists for capitalism, but not a majority, unless you count as green anyone who buys things labelled green and does Earthday, those people are not the essence of green. Where I'm from, Greens have a repution: Watermelon, "Green on the outside, red on the inside" does that sound very capitalist to you? There are many countries in the world, your experience may be different, but my experience with Greens in North America does not jive with what you say. On top of that, the Canadian political sphere used to be eons left of the USA one, we're a bit closer lately, since Bushes sibling Harper runs the country, and next election looks not any better, sadly.

I was speaking of the Green Party and the Pacific Green Party's leadership. Sure there are many people including myself, a vegan, who practice a green lifestyle and are anti-capitalist.

 

I live in a very, very "green" city here in the frontyard and the overwhelming majority of the people here who're involved in environmental, women's and social justice issues are liberals. The others are anarchists who're usually even more clueless than the liberals about the nature of capitalism...they're usually a step ahead regarding women's issues though.

 

Good luck with your $elections there in Canada.

Sandy, you are not paying close attention to the arguments.
I AM arguing that the key issue is equality of opportunity.
I AM NOT arguing that the key issue is parity of income.  Or "equality of outcome".  That is the argument that everybody opposing me is making when they conclude that there is inherent discrimination in our system simply because average incomes are not equal for both genders.
It continually amazes me how poorly people understand their own arguments.  Its like none of actually invest any thought in your opinions at all.

"It continually amazes me how poorly people understand their own arguments.  Its like none of actually invest any thought in your opinions at all."

Maybe I'm just tired, but I can't figure this one out, Bruce. I thought you were complaining that I didn't understand your arguments, but then you seem to think that I don't even understand my own. Which is it? Either or both?

Actually, I do invest quite a lot of thought in formulating my opinions, but I don't expend endless amounts of time in anally polishing them to perfection before I express them, so I acknowledge that some are a bit raw and ill-formed. They either become refined by exposing them to debate, or I abandon them because they don't stand the test. Isn't that what it's all about?

Edited!

My apologies Sandy.  I thought you were someone else.

That, Bruce, is an extremely weird and inappropriate comment.

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