Thoughts on Feminism in the new millenium.

I've had this on my mind for a while now, and it's become more relevant to me given my current status as a stay-at-home mom (something I'd never really envisioned for myself).

There have been major shifts over the years in regards to what feminism is, and what's it's supposed to mean for individual women. You hear the terms "first wave" "second wave" "third wave," and I'm not clear on what defines each from a philosophical or sociological standpoint. I do know, though, that women in my generation (Gen X), seem to differ greatly from the Baby Boomers in their attitudes towards feminism, especially as it relates to their own lives. Interestingly, though my friends are mostly college-educated, and many have graduate degrees, and started out having careers in the professions, they've mostly chosen to quit their jobs and even their careers to raise their families. I've thought for years that giving women choice of how to live their lives is what feminism is all about, but I'm starting to change my mind about that. Is it really a feminist option to fall into the same housewively role that women have always had? I'm not saying that individuals (men and women) should have the choice to do what they want to, can we really call it a win for feminism when a woman chooses that role? Take Michelle Duggar...I think it's 100% her own choice to have 20 children and stay home and teach them how to make tater tot casserole, but can you call that a choice that champions the feminist cause?

And, although I'm typically not into identity politics, isn't it to some degree incumbent on women to do their part in making sure women have a role in government and business? Take an acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer. When she quit to stay home with her family, that made one less female lawyer who might be a partner in a firm some day. Which reinforces stereotypes and makes it that much harder for the female lawyer who wants to make partner. I'm sure this person considers herself a feminist in the "women should have a choice" school of thinking, but is she really making decisions from a feminist perspective? Doesn't it damage opportunity for women when women don't take advantage of the opportunities afforded to us?

So I guess my question to the mellos is...what is feminism? Is it really as simple as every woman making her own choice?

It has to be more complex than every woman making her own choice, because it's absurd to say the decision to stay in an abusive relationship is feminist. Somewhere, there has to be a distinction. The fight for equality isn't about a bunch of "follow your bliss" stuff. It's about, well, equality.

Sometimes, I feel that feminism has gotten so muddled and twisted by different people trying to use it for their own agendas that it's almost impossible for the word to have any meaning. But it does have meaning, and that meaning needs to be remembered and separated from personal politics. It has nothing to do with how you feel about porn or politics or if you're a prostitute or a nun.

This essay on what it means to be a feminist is probably one of my favorites.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah Bunting

The definition of feminism does not judge your lifestyle. You like girls, you like boys, doesn't matter. You eat meat, you don't eat meat, you don't eat meat or dairy, you don't eat fast food, doesn't matter. You can get married, and you can change your name or keep the one your parents gave you, doesn't matter. You can have kids, you can stay home with them or not, you can hate kids, doesn't matter. You can stay a virgin or you can boink everyone in sight, doesn't matter. It's not in the definition. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

---

Yeah, I can agree with that. Bottom line is that it's about equality of the sexes. I guess for me the further question is, what do we have to do to truly achieve that? Doesn't it take more than women staying home with their kids, even though she might say, "yes, women should be equal to men and have the same opportunities?"

Zuul got the Tomato Nation article before I did. I don't think I can say anything more succinctly than that.

As for your lawyer friend, I don't think she should in any way be obligated to make her life choices based on making a career path easier for other random women.

Well, I'm not thinking of it as making it easier for random women, I'm thinking of it as making it easier for womankind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Yeah, I can agree with that. Bottom line is that it's about equality of the sexes. I guess for me the further question is, what do we have to do to truly achieve that? Doesn't it take more than women staying home with their kids, even though she might say, "yes, women should be equal to men and have the same opportunities?"

---

Are you raising your children with the idea that women are equals with men? Are you correcting dangerous or damaging stereotypes when your kids are exposed to them? Do you show them that you and their father are both strong, capable people worthy of respect? I think there are lots of things a stay at home mom is doing that can be very beneficial to improving equality in the world. You're there every day, showing them what you're capable of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Doesn't it take more than women staying home with their kids, even though she might say, "yes, women should be equal to men and have the same opportunities?"

---

I don't know, I think it has as much to do with attitudes towards women (and housework, and child-rearing). I think that access to education, equal rights/expectations under the law*, and societal expectations about appearance and behavior are all more important to feminism than lifestyle and employment choices.

My stay-at-home mother was a VERY strong influence on her three daughters to get themselves educated and pursue careers.

*Selective service should be required for everyone or no one. It's not like there aren't a kajillion military jobs women are permitted to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Yeah, I can agree with that. Bottom line is that it's about equality of the sexes. I guess for me the further question is, what do we have to do to truly achieve that? Doesn't it take more than women staying home with their kids, even though she might say, "yes, women should be equal to men and have the same opportunities?"

---

Are you raising your children with the idea that women are equals with men? Are you correcting dangerous or damaging stereotypes when your kids are exposed to them? Do you show them that you and their father are both strong, capable people worthy of respect? I think there are lots of things a stay at home mom is doing that can be very beneficial to improving equality in the world. You're there every day, showing them what you're capable of.

---

Sure, I'm teaching them those things...or I hope I am. And within the house, yes, I think my husband and I model a pretty equal relationship. But do I want them to see me choosing to stay at home at the expense of a career? Not really, it kind of bothers me to think that they might get that message from me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

I don't know, I think it has as much to do with attitudes towards women (and housework, and child-rearing). I think that access to education, equal rights/expectations under the law*, and societal expectations about appearance and behavior are all more important to feminism than lifestyle and employment choices.

---

I agree with that. But where do the attitudes come from? The fewer women who are in the workplace, especially in the professions and management, the less people are going to have the attitude that women can do those jobs as well as men can.

I look around me and I see successful women everywhere. Often better educated than me, more suited to corporate life, with a helluva lot more drive to succeed. Economic studies support this and in another 10 years I expect most industries will be more or less managed by women at the top. The war was won a long time ago, now it's just for you to decide if you can survive the peace. Hell, throw men a bone, we're doing horrible lately in education studies.

I liked your question on if doing your own thing is true feminism. It doesn't matter though. The majority of women aren't going to support feminism anymore. Or I should say every woman will come up with her own view of feminism and then skip down awesome street on her way to fabulous town. You can't hold groups together like that when there's nothing really concrete left to fight for. At this point you're just waiting for old people to die I guess.

Equality has arrived, good luck with all the rest. Much like every revolution they promised you paradise and all you got was this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

*Selective service should be required for everyone or no one. It's not like there aren't a kajillion military jobs women are permitted to do.

---

There's a line of thought that selective service isn't being offered to everyone because in the type of war that would require it we would be advised not to send all our young women to die. Other than that though I would agree.

hates, that's a great post. I think you're right about a lot of it. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who are smart, driven to succeed, and all that. But yeah, I think even they don't think about feminism much...why should they, right? I mean, the war really has been won in many ways. Does it mean we're going to backslide, though? Are there still insidious ways that women are discriminated against that we don't even see BECAUSE we have accomplished so much?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

But do I want them to see me choosing to stay at home at the expense of a career? Not really, it kind of bothers me to think that they might get that message from me.

---

Why? It almost seems like you think that child-rearing is a less-worthy pursuit than working outside the home.

Of course, I'm saying this as someone who

A) would love to have kids and

B) would sacrifice 2-7 toes to have the chance to be a stay-at-home mom to said hypothetical kids.

My older sis thinks such a plan is insane - she has a kid but is much happier and more fulfilled working, despite the fact that it makes her family's home life pretty complicated (to my eyes).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

The fewer women who are in the workplace, especially in the professions and management, the less people are going to have the attitude that women can do those jobs as well as men can.

---

I don't know if that's a cat that's going to go back in the bag. We've been having female Secretaries of State for so long, I can barely remember that being an unusual thing. There are many female CEOs and lawyers, and it almsot seems like MORE doctors nowadays are women than men.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

hates, that's a great post. I think you're right about a lot of it. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who are smart, driven to succeed, and all that. But yeah, I think even they don't think about feminism much...why should they, right? I mean, the war really has been won in many ways. Does it mean we're going to backslide, though? Are there still insidious ways that women are discriminated against that we don't even see BECAUSE we have accomplished so much?

---

Well that sounds paranoid, but sure there's always the chance that in our old age society will have reverted back in time to a land where men stay at home and raise kids and women go to work and drink themselves to death. Hell... it sounds beautiful.

I think Hates is right, the war was won and by the time my daughter is my age, the glass ceiling will not be around any more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Why? It almost seems like you think that child-rearing is a less-worthy pursuit than working outside the home.

Of course, I'm saying this as someone who

A) would love to have kids and

B) would sacrifice 2-7 toes to have the chance to be a stay-at-home mom to said hypothetical kids.

My older sis thinks such a plan is insane - she has a kid but is much happier and more fulfilled working, despite the fact that it makes her family's home life pretty complicated (to my eyes).

---

Yeah, I actually plan on being a stay-at-home parent. My job is from home anyway, so it would simply make the most sense all around. If it's feasible economically for a family, there's a lot of good for your children in staying at home. It's not for everyone, but for those who can do it and want to do it there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

But do I want them to see me choosing to stay at home at the expense of a career? Not really, it kind of bothers me to think that they might get that message from me.

---

Why? It almost seems like you think that child-rearing is a less-worthy pursuit than working outside the home.

Of course, I'm saying this as someone who

A) would love to have kids and

B) would sacrifice 2-7 toes to have the chance to be a stay-at-home mom to said hypothetical kids.

My older sis thinks such a plan is insane - she has a kid but is much happier and more fulfilled working, despite the fact that it makes her family's home life pretty complicated (to my eyes).

---

I can vouch for complicated, that's for sure. And no, I don't think raising children isn't a worthy pursuit, nor do I want to disparage people who want to do it. I guess I just worry about fulfilling the stereotype, you know? That I'll give my daughter the idea that women do their best work inside the home vs. outside.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

The fewer women who are in the workplace, especially in the professions and management, the less people are going to have the attitude that women can do those jobs as well as men can.

---

I don't know if that's a cat that's going to go back in the bag. We've been having female Secretaries of State for so long, I can barely remember that being an unusual thing. There are many female CEOs and lawyers, and it almsot seems like MORE doctors nowadays are women than men.

---

Maybe, but will it stay that way? And when will we have a woman president? Secretaries of State are appointed...when will women really start getting elected to high office in large numbers?

Still 20-30 years off. The older generations run things and they need to die off/retire.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Why? It almost seems like you think that child-rearing is a less-worthy pursuit than working outside the home.

Of course, I'm saying this as someone who

A) would love to have kids and

B) would sacrifice 2-7 toes to have the chance to be a stay-at-home mom to said hypothetical kids.

My older sis thinks such a plan is insane - she has a kid but is much happier and more fulfilled working, despite the fact that it makes her family's home life pretty complicated (to my eyes).

---

Yeah, I actually plan on being a stay-at-home parent. My job is from home anyway, so it would simply make the most sense all around. If it's feasible economically for a family, there's a lot of good for your children in staying at home. It's not for everyone, but for those who can do it and want to do it there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

---

But that's you still having a career. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start the mommy wars, here, there's nothing I hate more on the internet. And I think there's nothing wrong with anyone staying home to take care of their children. But I'd love to see it done in equal numbers by men as women, and I'd love to see women doing more to maintain careers even while staying home.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I think Hates is right, the war was won ...

---

I wouldn't go that far. I think there's still some work to be done, particularly regarding media portrayals and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

But that's you still having a career. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start the mommy wars, here, there's nothing I hate more on the internet. And I think there's nothing wrong with anyone staying home to take care of their children. But I'd love to see it done in equal numbers by men as women, and I'd love to see women doing more to maintain careers even while staying home.

---

I agree that parenting should be undertaken more equally - going back to my one family example, my sister and her husband split the childcare duties pretty evenly, and their jobs are such that either one of them might have to take care of the kid solo for a day or an evening. And that's definitely a good thing.

And I definitely think that women who want to maintain a career after having kids should be able to do so. Personally, I'm not a career-driven person. Never have been, and 15 years in the workforce hasn't changed that. But I don't think that makes me less of a feminist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I think Hates is right, the war was won ...

---

I wouldn't go that far. I think there's still some work to be done, particularly regarding media portrayals and the like.

---

Well for what it's worth, media portrayals are just bad period now. Men, especially fathers are usually universally dumb now. So while women still have most of their old baggage. Men are either juveniles or idiots or both now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well for what it's worth, media portrayals are just bad period now. Men, especially fathers are usually universally dumb now. So while women still have most of their old baggage. Men are either juveniles or idiots or both now.

---

I don't think that's true. I think there is a much wider variety of male characters in TV and movies, and most protagonists tend to be men.

I was thinking TV sitcoms. My bad. Your right, the movies have probably less good strong roles for women now than the 70s to be honest.

I think the stereotypes regarding female characters are worse and more restrictive, but Jim does bring up something I've noticed before. The "males as lovable idiots" idea is pretty prevalent in the media. The charming man-child that the responsible, fun-hating woman can't help but sleep with is a common trope in comedies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

But that's you still having a career. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start the mommy wars, here, there's nothing I hate more on the internet. And I think there's nothing wrong with anyone staying home to take care of their children. But I'd love to see it done in equal numbers by men as women, and I'd love to see women doing more to maintain careers even while staying home.

---

Guys my age aren't going to college or graduating at the same rate they used to, while for women the numbers are climbing. If this trend continues, you'll see a lot more men staying home with the kids in a few years here. When women make less than men, even if there's no sexism in the household it makes sense for the mother to be the one to stay home in your typical straight, nuclear family. But if there are more women with careers and degrees, it's going to start making sense for some of these guys who didn't bother with a higher education to be the ones to stay home.

Also.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

...every woman will come up with her own view of feminism and then skip down awesome street on her way to fabulous town.

---

This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Loved it.

Is the feminism that was being fought for several years and decades ago, the same feminisim that is being fought for today. Have the ideals behind it changed at all from aiming for equality to promotion of women, not because of their skills, but because they are women.

Also, is feminism a western ideal and desire that fits in well with our thoughts and feelings, but does not necessarily apply to other cultures.

It's all crap.

A lot of women these days are torn between wanting to have a successful corporate career and also wanting to be a successful mother. Societally, the two are mutually exclusive, which leads to massive internal confusion. It's impossible to be successful in both roles, simultaneously.

Being a stay at home parent is difficult, often lonesome due to less interaction with peers, and relatively unstructured. At work there's generally a large support team to handle issues, but stay at home parents are the whole team. The working father archetype is the slightly distant, stern, supportive father figure.

To me, working a full time job and being able to avoid the responsibilities of dealing with my little monkey was a bit of an escape. Things happened on my schedule as long as goals were met. I can only imagine how attractive that is to a woman who feels like she has no control over herself. That's the real root of the issue. To me, real feminism is where a woman feels in control of herself and is comfortable with her role in life. Noone is able to decide that except for herself and a lot of the people pushing that women should be a certain way do nothing but confuse the issue.

It's all crap.

A lot of women these days are torn between wanting to have a successful corporate career and also wanting to be a successful mother. Societally, the two are mutually exclusive, which leads to massive internal confusion. It's impossible to be successful in both roles, simultaneously.

Being a stay at home parent is difficult, often lonesome due to less interaction with peers, and relatively unstructured. At work there's generally a large support team to handle issues, but stay at home parents are the whole team. The working father archetype is the slightly distant, stern, supportive father figure.

To me, working a full time job and being able to avoid the responsibilities of dealing with my little monkey was a bit of an escape. Things happened on my schedule as long as goals were met. I can only imagine how attractive that is to a woman who feels like she has no control over herself. That's the real root of the issue. To me, real feminism is where a woman feels in control of herself and is comfortable with her role in life. Noone is able to decide that except for herself and a lot of the people pushing that women should be a certain way do nothing but confuse the issue.

I guess I wasn't thinking so much specifically about the stay at home mom thing, as just the definition of feminism in general. Is a choice a feminist choice because a woman is making the choice, and has the right and social autonomy to do so?

A lot of feminists see women who choose to be stay at home mothers as traitors to the "feminist cause". Feminism to me is just about being able to make a choice without undue outside influence on that choice.

Well, yeah, like I said, I'm not of the opinion that anyone's a traitor. That's right up there with the people who tell me that I "gave my children to strangers to raise" when I put them in daycare. But how can we tell what is an outside influence? If culturally we haven't changed the expectation that it's the mom and not the dad who stays home, is that really huge progress?

Why should it be viewed as progress? Men and women are wired differently. Progress is just making sure there's the opportunity for women to do things.

That said, I find it harder to work with women than men because of the double standards. If I call out a guy for doing something stupid, it's okay. If I do it to a woman, all she has to do is be passive-aggressive, lie about some stuff, sniffle, bat her eyes at someone. Suddenly, I'm a bully.

Oh Hobbler,

you are demonstrative.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Well, yeah, like I said, I'm not of the opinion that anyone's a traitor. That's right up there with the people who tell me that I "gave my children to strangers to raise" when I put them in daycare. But how can we tell what is an outside influence? If culturally we haven't changed the expectation that it's the mom and not the dad who stays home, is that really huge progress?

---

That is a really tough question. Did you ever read Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender? She goes into a lot of this and how there are so many expectations we're lead to have because of culture, to the point where people can be incapable of even recognizing that they're culturally invented expectations instead of genuine, intrinsic differences.

Even in animals like rats that don't typically have the males involved in the rearing of infants, the males will still care for the infants under the right conditions. It's an ability that often lies dormant, but it exists because there's largely no reason for it not to exist. It's an advantage to have that flexibility. The chapter that talks about primates was particularly interesting:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cordelia Fine

Frances Burton has pointed out that, just like us, primate societies have norms regarding which sex does what: who gets food, rears the young, moves the troop, protects the troop, and maintains group cohesion. But, these norms are different across, or even within, primate species. Male involvement in infant rearing, for instance, ranges from the hands-off to the intimate. For example, "a specially intimate relation between adult males and infants" has been seen in some troops of wild Japanese macaque monkeys (the species Macaca fuscata fuscata) during delivery season: males protect, carry and groom one- and two-year-old infants. Yet different troops of the same species, in different parts of the country, show less of this paternal care, or even none at all. Similarly, in another species of macaque (Macaca sylvanus) Burton has seen extensive and lengthy male care of young in a Gibraltor troop. Indeed, so important is male baby-sitting in this troop "young females are kept away from infants so that young males may learn their role." Yet among the very same species on Morocco, male care is much less significant.

As Burton argued, "while hormones are the same" throughout these different species, there is no "universal pattern" to how the different tasks of society, including infant child care, are divided.

---

It goes on from there, mentioning that the young male macaques will watch the adult males and mimic their behavior. If the dominant male of the troop is seen caring for infants, then the young males will grow up to be nurturers. If he's aloof, then they'll grow up similarly.

Obviously, human beings aren't macaques, but I think we're at least as flexible as they are. There are men who are the primary caregivers for their children and they're perfectly capable at it. Rather than avoiding instances of stay-at-home motherhood, I think that children seeing that men can care for children without sacrificing their masculinity is probably more likely to wipe away the cultural expectations you mention. Culturally, we've accepted the idea that women can work outside the home. If there's a fight still left to win when it comes to childcare, it's in showing there's no shame in staying in the home, regardless of gender.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbler

Why should it be viewed as progress? Men and women are wired differently.

---

Since this is in reply specifically to the cultural expectation of women staying home with children and not men, I can only assume that you're suggesting that this is biologically determined somehow. If you've got anything to back up that claim, I'd love to see it.

Circumstantial, but mothers do tend to bond a lot better with their newborns for the first year or so than the fathers do.

I take it your varied and lengthy experience in childcare and family assistance has given you the great insight to make up and back that observation in a way that couldn't be chalked up to being only culturally and not biologically relevant?

You could always bring facts to the table instead of attacking me. My circumstantial evidence is from myself and personal discussions with acquaintances. I'm too lazy to spend time researching it online right now, but it is entirely possible that my social grouping has beliefs close to my own.

Zuul: Yeah, we are just as flexible as the monkeys. I was perfectly capable of taking care of my daughter and did at times, but there just wasn't the same connection as there was with my wife. It took a while for me to really warm up to her, which concerned me until I spoke with other people about it. Turns out it's not that abnormal. After she became more mobile, I became a source of amusement/couch/food dispenser, but any sleep/relaxation/serious calming didn't involve me. The increased mobility also made her more something I could understand and deal with than the little squishy, temperamental thing. Good point about the way you're brought up, as well. How do you really break that cycle, though?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbler

It took a while for me to really warm up to her, which concerned me until I spoke with other people about it.

---

That time to warm up is something my mom (a midwife) has observed frequently in new fathers. Who knows what the cause of it is, if it's cultural, circumstantial or biological, but she's said that in a lot of cases it does take a little longer for the dad to "get" it. I wonder if part of it might be simply that for the mother, she's had that little person inside of her for nine months, so this is just the end of a long road for her. While for the dad, he hasn't really been that physically involved until after the birth. It's probably not a huge detriment to your later relationship, since adoptive parents who miss that early stage of lump baby still bond.

As for breaking the cycle, I'm not sure. If Peeta is right that the guys who are skipping or dropping out of college now might be more likely to stay at home with the kids, it might break on its own.

It makes perfect sense to me that a father may take longer to bond with an infant. I've heard that women start being mothers at pregnancy but men don't really become fathers until the birth. I mean that in the psychological sense of course.

Is feminism somehow shooting itself in the foot? I don't know. I see a lot of career oriented women at my university and a lot of slacker males but I don't feel comfortable trying to establish any sort of pattern from that. I would not be surprised to see more stay at home dads in the future but then I'm biased because a)I want to be a stay at home dad and b)since I was about 10 my dad worked part-time and did all the domestic chores and my mom worked fulltime. So my ideas about gender roles are possibly a little whack.

Sometimes I cringe at how far it seems we have to go just regarding the word. Not the debating of the finer points like we're doing here, what does it really mean, how has it changed or not, etc. I'm talking about the reflex some folks still have that equates 'feminist' with 'man-hating lesbian femi-nazi who wants all of the choice and none of the responsibility.'

I'm the only female tradesman in my plant, out of 65. The other day one guy was riffing on putting a stripper pole in the front lobby and arranging our (female) safety mannequin around it. It was funny because the plant manager had us install a glass block entryway with color-flashing LED lights behind it, so it totally looks like something from a strip joint and not a factory. As soon as he said the bit about the stripper pole, three other guys immediately said things like "Oh, no, you can't do that! Some feminist will walk by and get offended and we'll all be fired! Don't even joke about it, one might hear you and you'll wind up in HR!"

The idea that I might be a feminist, the only girl standing right there, just wasn't part of their mental picture. I can't possibly be a feminist, because they like me. Most of the guys are in their fifties and sixties, and perhaps that explains the disconnect between my connotation and theirs, but being constantly reassured that I'm nothing like those awful feminists is tiring.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

It makes perfect sense to me that a father may take longer to bond with an infant. I've heard that women start being mothers at pregnancy but men don't really become fathers until the birth. I mean that in the psychological sense of course.

Is feminism somehow shooting itself in the foot? I don't know. I see a lot of career oriented women at my university and a lot of slacker males but I don't feel comfortable trying to establish any sort of pattern from that. I would not be surprised to see more stay at home dads in the future but then I'm biased because a)I want to be a stay at home dad and b)since I was about 10 my dad worked part-time and did all the domestic chores and my mom worked fulltime. So my ideas about gender roles are possibly a little whack.

---

I actually love the idea of being a stay-at-home dad, but seeing as how I don't think I'll actually be able to run a lab out of my house I don't see that working out for me. If it becomes feasible to stay home for an extended amount of times when I have kids, I'd definitely do it, though. My parents were pretty traditional, but my dad's mother was not and she had a pretty big impact on me growing up. I think things are changing and in a lot of ways have already changed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Queen Tonya

Sometimes I cringe at how far it seems we have to go just regarding the word. Not the debating of the finer points like we're doing here, what does it really mean, how has it changed or not, etc. I'm talking about the reflex some folks still have that equates 'feminist' with 'man-hating lesbian femi-nazi who wants all of the choice and none of the responsibility.'

---

Yeah, I find that sort of thing really sad. It always irritates me when one of my female classmates says she isn't a feminist and thinks they never did anything good. Oh, really? Then how the hell do you think you got here?

Even if it's true that women bond better during the first year, which actually is true in my observation, childcare takes a lot longer than a year. I personally think after the first year my husband would do a BETTER job than I would as the full-time parent, and that's just based on personality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbler

You could always bring facts to the table instead of attacking me. My circumstantial evidence is from myself and personal discussions with acquaintances. I'm too lazy to spend time researching it online right now, but it is entirely possible that my social grouping has beliefs close to my own.

---

'Nuff said. called it.

Check please.

And to think I thought you were just a troll sock!

Peeta, did you ever read the Wrinkle in Time books? The mother had a lab attached to the house so she could do experiments and run the household. I always wanted my mom to do that, so that she could be home more often too.

Queen Tonya: Blame Rush Limbaugh and his group for the whole "Femi-Nazi" thing. They did a lot to demonize the modern Feminist movement by focusing on the extreme portions of the movement. Personally, I have zero respect for the women who demand to be treated exactly the same as men when it's convenient, but still expect the full amount of preferential social treatment accorded women. ie, don't get as offended over dick and fart jokes. If guys are comfortable enough around a woman to make tasteless jokes, it usually means they see the woman as "one of the guys."

Sarahfeena: Not going to argue that at all, but a lot of the societal imprinting happens in the first year. Until we start growing kids in gestational vats, is there really a way to change this?

Panther Squad: At least I'm honest about it and other people here have backed up some of my observations. This forum is an informal discussion, not a place where everyone posts a full length essay. What have you contributed to the discussion? If you have an issue with something I've said, nothing is stopping you from going out and finding facts to dispute it. Instead, you've made repeated personal attacks towards me that I don't appreciate. Please stop.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Take an acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer. When she quit to stay home with her family, that made one less female lawyer who might be a partner in a firm some day. Which reinforces stereotypes and makes it that much harder for the female lawyer who wants to make partner. I'm sure this person considers herself a feminist in the "women should have a choice" school of thinking, but is she really making decisions from a feminist perspective? Doesn't it damage opportunity for women when women don't take advantage of the opportunities afforded to us?

---

Your friend might be interested in the Final Report of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Women in Private Practice Working Group. It has been received well. One of the working group's co-chairs has been elected as head of the Law Society, and the other co-chair has been made a Superior Court judge in my city.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Obviously, human beings aren't macaques

---

I think that some of the hippies in Nolalu might be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

So I guess my question to the mellos is...what is feminism? Is it really as simple as every woman making her own choice?

---

I think that feminism is a process that helps women obtain optimal well-being by way of building a society that is structured so that women can make their own choices without undue restriction.

At any given time, feminists must consider what restrictions are reasonable and what restrictions are undue, and work toward removing the undue restrictions, so as to best find a balance between the physical, sociocultural, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and occupational dimensions of well-being.

At any given time, the particular societal restrictions may differ: restrictions on education, voting, reproduction, professional employment, health care, day care, maternity leave, re-introduction into the workplace, and on and on.

At any given time, the tactics used by feminists may differ, ranging from marches to legislative policy making, from public polemics to personal discussions with family and friends, from working in the trenches to being an example for one's children.

There are, and historically have been, many faces of feminism, but at the core, feminism is about the well-being of women.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbler

Sarahfeena: Not going to argue that at all, but a lot of the societal imprinting happens in the first year. Until we start growing kids in gestational vats, is there really a way to change this?

---

No, but that wasn't my point. My point is that after that first year where moms are perhaps a little more necessary, what's to stop men from being the ones to stay home, other than societal attitudes? And will we really have achieved equality without that happening?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Panther Squad

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbler

You could always bring facts to the table instead of attacking me. My circumstantial evidence is from myself and personal discussions with acquaintances. I'm too lazy to spend time researching it online right now, but it is entirely possible that my social grouping has beliefs close to my own.

---

'Nuff said. called it.

Check please.

And to think I thought you were just a troll sock!

---

Moderator note: Hey, Panther, let's attack the argument and not the poster. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffin

There are, and historically have been, many faces of feminism, but at the core, feminism is about the well-being of women.

---

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way...do you think equality between the sexes and the well-being of women are the same thing? Or that equality isn't the goal per se?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way...do you think equality between the sexes and the well-being of women are the same thing? Or that equality isn't the goal per se?

---

I'd say equality should be the expectation. I don't want to be treated better than anyone based on my gender, but I certainly don't want to be treated as less important or worthy. Now, part of this equality might be that "I won't talk about my vagina and I don't want to hear about your penis," but I think that's pretty fair.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marsilia

Now, part of this equality might be that "I won't talk about my vagina and I don't want to hear about your penis," but I think that's pretty fair.

---

Is this a reference to sexual harassment or are you talking about equality = not discussing/acknowledging sex?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffin

There are, and historically have been, many faces of feminism, but at the core, feminism is about the well-being of women.

---

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way...do you think equality between the sexes and the well-being of women are the same thing? Or that equality isn't the goal per se?

---

Equality is a necessary but not sufficient tool for women to use in working toward reaching optimal well-being.

For example, it is pretty hard for women to better their lots without equality before the law, and equality in education. Equality before the law and equality in education are necessary.

Equality, however is not sufficient to work toward optimal well-being.

One example is equality in employment. Equality in employment does not address the issue of child bearing and child rearing, which sets women back in their careers. Feminism, being about the well-being of women, includes working toward maternity leave, affordable day care, and development and promotion of programs that make it possible for women who are raising children to continue with their careers on a full or part-time basis, or to re-enter the workforce and catch up with their careers at a later date, rather than be relegated to the employment scrap heap.

Another example is equality in health care. There is equality in health care between the sexes, but the system falls down in meeting the needs of the working poor, which disproportionally harms women because they tend to be poorer in the first place due to employment inequities (lower pay for the same work), due to career hits taken to have children, due to usually being the single parent in broken homes, and due to their tending to sacrifice their own health for the sake of their families when times are very tight. Feminism, being about the well-being of women, includes working toward a health system that meets the needs of women.

Fortunately, improving the state of women tends to also improve the state of everyone. An employment inequity that helps women who have children still move forward with their careers helps everyone by helping the economy. A re-direction of wealth into the health care system to help women receive the health care they need helps everyone by providing greater access to health care for all. When it comes to feminism, it is win-win for all, despite feminism being about the well-being of women.

I'm late to this thread, and now Sarafeena and Muffin have articulated most of what I would say. But maybe I can add a few observations based on the fact I am one of Mello's oldest and farthest-flung posters.

First, there is no question that things are MUCH better in America than they used to be. The casual sexism in "Mad Men" may be laid on a bit thick, but my own experience as a young woman in the 1970's was not all that different.

Second, there is still a ways to go before true equality occurs in the US. Here in Jakarta (and this was true in Egypt and Mozambique as well) I am surrounded by American women who do not work. In fact, the typical expatriate family here closely resembles a nuclear family of the 1950s or 1960s, where all of the father's energy goes into work and the mother takes nearly exclusive responsibility for seeing to the needs of the children. Part of this is due to the fact that "trailing spouses," the term used to describe the partners who came along because their spouse got a job in a foreign country, have a great deal of difficulty finding work due to legal and practical barriers. But if that were ALL that were going on, we would see equal numbers of unemployed expatriate men who accompanied their wives.

In a strange sort of way, living as part of a foreign community tends to accentuate the fundamental aspects of one's culture, perhaps because one can see them more clearly when they are in constant relief against the surrounding zeitgeist. On that basis, I would say that there is still a strong strain of male domination in the American workplace that has yet to be obliterated.

Third and finally, it's my own belief that real equality will not be achieved until it is global. Most of the discussion in this thread treats feminism, culture, and current attitudes as if there were only one country in the world. Yet the life of a woman in the US bears only passing relationship to that of a woman in Sweden, and almost none to that of a woman in Saudi Arabia or Cameroon. Do women in countries where women are more repressed desire greater freedom and opportunity? The evidence - in the form of a few brave feminists who speak out, in the fact that most women embrace birth control when it is offered - suggest that on the whole, the desire for choice and self-actualization is a universal human trait that transcends gender and individual culture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

Third and finally, it's my own belief that real equality will not be achieved until it is global. Most of the discussion in this thread treats feminism, culture, and current attitudes as if there were only one country in the world. Yet the life of a woman in the US bears only passing relationship to that of a woman in Sweden, and almost none to that of a woman in Saudi Arabia or Cameroon.

---

I think the fact that they bear little resemblance to one another is a huge reason as to why there isn't more discussion here about it. When discussing first world problems like whether or not to stay at home with your children, it'd be somewhat arrogant to try to compare your plight to those of women in Saudi Arabia. I recognize how minor my own personal goals for equality are in comparison to countries where gay men are regularly and publicly killed, but that doesn't mean I can't care about and focus on solving my own problems.

When it comes to issues like equality and personal freedom, they are so wrapped up in cultural expectations and beliefs that it can be absolutely overwhelming to try to look at the big picture. There may be similar fears and biases behind the problems in different countries, but the cultural beliefs and methods for dealing with them are too different for a one-size fits all sollution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peeta Mellark

I think the fact that they bear little resemblance to one another is a huge reason as to why there isn't more discussion here about it. When discussing first world problems like whether or not to stay at home with your children, it'd be somewhat arrogant to try to compare your plight to those of women in Saudi Arabia. I recognize how minor my own personal goals for equality are in comparison to countries where gay men are regularly and publicly killed, but that doesn't mean I can't care about and focus on solving my own problems.

When it comes to issues like equality and personal freedom, they are so wrapped up in cultural expectations and beliefs that it can be absolutely overwhelming to try to look at the big picture. There may be similar fears and biases behind the problems in different countries, but the cultural beliefs and methods for dealing with them are too different for a one-size fits all sollution.

---

True, and well-said, but that state of affairs is diminishing as globalization increases. Besides which, the US still exerts a huge cultural influence across the world via movies and TV (recall the oft-cited fact that The Cosby Show was one of the most popular TV shows in South Africa). Moreover, the US (and other donor countries) generally make certain values - foremost among them, gender equity - a key facet of their aid programs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the division is not as stark as you may think. "The fact that [American and international struggles to overcome repression based on gender, sexual identity, etc.] bear little resemblance to one another" is part of the reason that the international context gets ignored in a discussion like this one. But really, I think the fact that Americans are on the whole oblivious to the rest of the world has just as much to do with it. I can't support this assertion with any statistics, of course, but I think it's true that individuals from countries outside the US are far more likely to frame their discussion of culture-dependent concerns in a wider context. There is more acknowledgment that a larger framework can be a valuable tool for understanding and analyzing what is happening at home.

You're probably right. I think a large part of it is that US culture is so omnipresent when it comes to entertainment. It's considered strange or even snobbish to watch movies and television shows from other countries here. The fact we're a large country and thus geographically isolated from our neighbors if we wish it helps. For all that America is called a melting pot, it allows for incredible cultural isolation. In many ways, it's just easier to be aware of that wider context in other countries.