Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gender Apartheid Online
Forty years ago, feminists demanded that special "women's pages," which featured fashion, society and cooking, be banished from newspapers. Instead, they insisted, newspapers should mainstream serious stories about the lives of women throughout their regular news.
Forty years later, the new media have re-segregated women's sections. The good news is that they are no longer about society, cooking and fashion. Most are tough, smart, incisive, analytic, and focus on events, trends or stories that the mainstream online news still ignores. The bad news is that they are not on the "front page" where men might learn about women's lives.
Does this trend signal success of failure? As an early activist in and scholar of the women's movement, I'm concerned that all we have gained after four decades are stand-alone feminist online magazines and web sites and the "right" to have separate women's sections embedded in other magazines. This is the women's pages of 1969 redux, even though these sections promote a broad array of serious subjects from a strong feminist perspective. Nor are all the editors of these online men who have cast women as "the other." Many are feminists who, for whatever reasons, have created these special women's sections.
Salon, for example,has Broadsheet, which produces excellent stories about issues or trends that affect half the population. Slate has Double XX, which recruits talented and thoughtful women to write stories that offer an important feminist perspective. PoliticsDaily.com has a "Woman Up" section that is a collective women's blog. OpenDemocracy, a British online magazine, has 50/50, a separate section that focuses on news stories about women around the world.
The list is long. Many are web sites or magazines that have their own special women's section. Even The New York Times, to the surprise of many journalists, has an online series called the Female Factor. Here you find fascinating articles that belong with the regular news, about women in corporations, political news from Germany, or problems faced by the newly retired. But because they focus specifically on women, and are online, they are mostly unknown to readers of the print version of The New York Times.
Some online magazines have no obvious special section. In order to access news about women on Truthout, for example, you have to go to "issues" and then click on "women." (When did half the population turn into "an issue?" ) The Huffington Post tends to place blog posts about women and "women's issues" in the Style or Living section.
Consider the /Inter Press Service/, which describes its mission as "giving a voice to the voiceless" - acting as a communication channel that privileges the voices and the concerns of the poorest and creates a climate of understanding, accountability and participation around development, promoting a new international information order between the South and the North."
Women, however, do not appear on the regular Inter Press Service. Instead IPS Gender Wire, a separate magazine, provides outstanding news about women's lives around the world. In each issue, IPS Gender Wire repeats the fact that "Women do not get half the media's attention, or an equal voice in expression - only 22 percent of the voices you hear and read in the news today are women's. In its stories IPS redresses this huge imbalance - covering emerging and frontline issues while asking an often forgotten question: What does this mean for women and girls?
The news stories that appear on IPS Gender Wire have focused on political opportunities for women in Senegal, investigated whether Namibian women are being sterilized, discussed women's debates in Lebanon about whether to don the hijab or bikini, and exposed sexual assaults against detained female immigrants by guards in Texas. And it never stops reminding readers that women are "Half the world's population, but not with half the share of wealth, well being and opportunity."
Think about it. Many of these sections are terrific and cover wonderful stories. They are not about fashion, cosmetics and wrinkle cream. But do men read them when they are clearly "marked" for women? I don't know, but the party line from writers and publisher is "of course." True, some of my male journalist friends know about some of these sites. But I can't find many ordinary men who regularly read these online magazines who even know that IPS Gender Wire exists, or who regularly click on Broadsheet. And most of my female friends have never even heard of the New York Times' Female Factor.
The quality of the writing and analysis in these "separate sections" is quite high. So what's my problem? My concern is that gender equality will only emerge when men are educated about women's lives and when women stop being quarantined as "the other." Why aren't stories that explore women's responses to the Taliban or Islamism, reproductive health issues, new forms of contraception, the growing majority of women in American higher education, or the estrogenic impact of cosmetics on women's health mainstreamed on the "front page" as part of the news about foreign policy, national security, ecology, pollution, or health care?
True, when the story is about the appointment of Elena Kagen, to the Supreme Court, the story automatically lands on the front page. But not when honor deaths kill hundreds of women in Pakistan.
The educated online audience reads a great deal about wars and conflict and I would be the last to deny the importance of these stories, whether they are about Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka or Thailand. But it is rare that we also read about the women and children who suffer the "collateral damage" of these military battles or who constitute the majority of refugees or displaced persons.
Off the record, those who write for these "special sections" freely admit to me that some of the publishers of the magazine would rather not cover these women's stories "on the front page." Since they won't speak on the record, I can only tell you that writers for these sections are happy to have an oasis in which to offer a feminist perspective on the world events, where they don't have to fight editors who still view women as "the other," and where they can expose, debate, and re-think how we would re-organize the world "if women really mattered."
As a result, they are resigned to write for a segregated news section because it allows them to publish such stories, provides them jobs, and gives writers opportunities to publish important stories about half the world's population.
So what would success look like? Right now, we have countless stand-alone women's news magazines and web sites such as Women's E News, Feministing, Jezebel, Ms. Blog, Rh Reality Check, New Agenda. Or, we have these special women's sections embedded in the new gender apartheid of online news magazines.
Success, in my view, will come when women's news is mainstreamed. News about women is linked to the health of the planet, the education of half the world's population, the reproductive opportunities for or constraints on half the world's people, the hidden injuries of sex, the violence against girls and women, and the poverty of women and children.
By now, most international organizations have embraced the fact that elevating women's status though education and reproductive choice results in a higher living standard for an entire population. Sadly, that widespread and obvious consensus has not yet penetrated the news media. We will know we've succeeded when every magazine asks of every news story, as IPS Gender Wire does, What does this mean for women and girls?
38 Comments so far
Show AllThe real sisterhood is international solidarity over ending economic enslavement.
Differing Ideals of Feminism
A semester in Ghana shows what U.S. feminism is missing
By Kendra Sundal
I‘ve spent much of my life buying into the role American feminism has designated for women of my generation. I was raised, by both a feminist mother and a feminist father, to believe that a strong woman was one who could compete on an even keel with any man. I was taught that I had a right – perhaps even an obligation – to be an independent and confident woman, as educated, capable, creative, talented, skilled and intellectual as any man I meet. Meanwhile, men, I was told, should be as capable of parenting, cooking and cleaning as any female.
Yet experience has taught me that role I willingly accepted as an American woman is far from universal. A semester in Ghana introduced me to women who were strong and respected yet rejected the American feminist paradigm. While Americans, and possibly American feminists specifically, champion their work towards closing the gender gap, Ghanaian women manage to maintain their femininity while retaining a level of respect that American women rarely find. Nevertheless, Americans, especially women, tend to view African women as oppressed and endangered.
I grew up believing that being a strong woman meant, in a way, being a man. As I got older, it seemed that masculinity – not femininity – was what made you a powerful and capable competitor in the “world of men,” and masculinity meant strength, intellect, common sense, emotional toughness and driving ambition. In all that I did I sought to succeed, and in doing so, exceed the expectations that had been assigned to me as a woman. In turn, I sacrificed many of the stereotypically feminine qualities that I saw as hindrances to my career goals and my desire to be seen as an equal by my male peers.
...
By the end of the second week in Ghana I was washing my clothes by hand and sometimes washing others’ because, knowing full well they would likely never use the skill, none of my American classmates wanted to spend their time in Ghana learning to hand wash clothes. I felt amazing pride in my work when I finally was able to make the whites white, and I felt a sense of loss that I had never even considered such tasks before.
...
Comfort taught me how to do things I had never before known how to do, in part because I had never needed to, but in part because I never wanted to. My disinterest had grown directly from a belief that such feminine activities would somehow weaken my resolve and suggest resignation to domesticity.
My opinions did not spring out of thin air. These degrading views of mothers as somehow less successful, less driven and less capable than their male or female business world counterparts seem to be fairly widespread in American thought. Women as homemakers evoke imagery from the 1950s’ “The Stepford Wives” and their scarily submissive robotic existence. With the Second Wave of feminism came a shedding of that image. Femininity and power, it was assumed, could not go hand in hand. No longer was the housewife a respected position in society (if it ever had been in America).
...
In Africa, American feminists’ ideals of gender equality have combined with their stereotypes of African women as submissive and oppressed. At times they exploit these ideas in promoting activism and aid programs. Imagine: poor women, wearing little more than rags, helpless to save themselves or their children from starvation, genital mutilation, genocide or AIDS. The imagery is not unfamiliar, and worse, it is fodder for the belief that African women cannot help themselves and are in constant danger, because they are not strong enough to stand up for themselves or speak out for their rights. Shameful and despondent, African women are victims waiting for feminist American women to speak out against genital cutting and to stand up for the rights of African women.
Interestingly enough, these activists rarely stop to consider cultural context. In doing so, they appear to care less about representing the African women they claim to champion and more about spreading a gender ideology and feminist ideology that are not, and should not necessarily be, shared by African women themselves.
...
Rarely do people who are misunderstood seek to adapt so as to make it easier for outsiders to relate. The case of African identities, specifically in regards to gender, should not be any different. African women have a right to stay silent or speak out, whichever suits their needs best, without being spoken for by Western women who cannot relate to the complexity of African gender relations.
Ghanaian women have self-respect, and are revered by their husbands and children. If a woman is a single mother, the community assists her in raising her child, but they also raise the mother in many ways. Women run the markets, they have credit unions in place, they care for each others’ stores and regulate prices to maintain fair competition. Women look out for one another around men; they discuss health issues; they warn each other about AIDS, STDs and pregnancy; they care for one another’s children and help each other through pregnancy. I witnessed all this during my stay, and it was clear that these were all staple aspects of women’s lives, with or without my presence.
...
Americans balk at the idea that they have much to learn from the rest of the world, but we have deprived ourselves in our ideas about gender equality. We could be living in a world with women who are three dimensional and valuable and admirable in their femaleness, and with men who are confident in themselves, because they are confident in their female counterparts. There is a give and take that allows for full humanity within both men and women, a kind of humanity we have denied ourselves by turning a complex issue into a black and white one.
http://buzzsawhaircut.com/?p=151
"Interestingly enough, these activists rarely stop to consider cultural context. In doing so, they appear to care less about representing the African women they claim to champion and more about spreading a gender ideology and feminist ideology that are not, and should not necessarily be, shared by African women themselves.
...
Rarely do people who are misunderstood seek to adapt so as to make it easier for outsiders to relate. The case of African identities, specifically in regards to gender, should not be any different. African women have a right to stay silent or speak out, whichever suits their needs best, without being spoken for by Western women who cannot relate to the complexity of African gender relations."
All true. Yet, you, an American woman, are here presuming to speak not just for Ghanaian women, but all African women, just simply because you spent a semester in Ghana.
Not to mention that is a very conservative viewpoint of "feminity" and "masculinity". And the solution she is suggesting appears to be also very conservative.
You beat me to it. That was my reaction exactly.
Every year some crypto-reactionary woman rediscovers "powerful women who aren't feminists". It's to laugh. And cry.
"I grew up believing that being a strong woman meant, in a way, being a man. As I got older, it seemed that masculinity – not femininity – was what made you a powerful and capable competitor in the 'world of men,'"
Bingo! There it is in a nutshell. Being "successful" as a woman means being better than the men at the men's game played by the men's rules. Never mind that playing by the men's rules has produced the disasters we see around the world - the rules that stress competition over cooperation, private over shared, etc.
Feminists have for too long insisted that to "fix" things all we needed to do was put more women in office, so we got folks like Thatcher and Meir and Clinton. The rise of moose-skinning Palin, hopefully, will finally give us pause in pursuing this absurd assumption. It is not so much who is good at following the rules but the rules that are being followed. If you listen, and you have to listen, as these folks don't shout, some of the more truly thoughtful men who have addressed this subject of rules have made the case for a female ethic in our dealings with the world. One of the more obvious examples is Yunnus (sp?) of microlending fame, who insisted on lending to women more than men based on his simple observation that women who were lent money tended to spend it on improving the lot of their families, whereas men tended to spend it on themselves ....
It's time to rewrite Henry Higgen's plaintive verse and ask "Why Can't a Man be More Like a Woman?"
Feminism, feminists, have NOTHING to do with female body parts. There is NO guarantee that a woman per se will be a feminist and have the consciousness to advocate for a better world for all women -- example, Phyllis Schafly! We might have a better chance with more women in government that women's issues will be addressed, but no guarantees. Some men are better feminists than a number of women I know. I don't see success for me or my daughter defined as being better at something than a male in any context; I see it as being able to pursue our dreams without having limitations put upon us simply because we are female. Not so very long ago, Western women were denied an education, barred from certain professions, and restricted under the law (property ownership, guardianship of children) simply because they were women. We must not forget this.
"Feminists have for too long insisted that to "fix" things all we needed to do was put more women in office, so we got folks like Thatcher and Meir and Clinton."
The feminists who have insisted that all you need is to put more women in office, are often the same ones who insist on a "female" ethic.
And the "semester in Ghana" writer doesn't appear to be advocating a "female" ethic. She appears to be advocating "female" roles for women, and "male" roles for men.
Women, like men, will find avenues and outlets for news and discussion of gender-specific issues, but mainstream and general purpose news organs are not that place. What's the value of being "tough, smart, incisive, analytic, and focus[sed]" when such articles are segregated?
We already had the national lesson on "separate but equal" and found it baseless, just another euphemism for racism. Segregated 'women's sections' are separate and not even equal. This practice is supporting, not combatting, misogyny.
I find too much attention given to feminists and feminism detracts from the real situation. Understanding of the differences and commonalities of the genders has greatly increased in recent generations, and those not yet able to see the sexes as fully equal (equivalent), usually suspect it could be true after all. Very few of the enlightened are actual feminist activists.
Note to lengthy commenters: I, for one, seldom read article-length comments. I do, however, often read excerpts and do follow links.
In case you missed it -- the facts: we females are 1/2, 50%, of the world's reality, which boils down to 1/2 of the world's "real" situations that you mention in your post. And, many of us females are also involved in the other 50% of the "real" situations because we are related to men -- by birth, by marriage, etc.
I do agree with your second paragraph, though -- "Segregated 'women's sections' are separate and not even equal."
Therefore, my conclusion is that your post is contradictory.
Fifty-ONE percent, Kay --- we're the numerical majority, not that anyone can tell by any status markers.
I guess I'm confused and wonder why any and all discussion of gender/sex equality is automatically categorized as 'feminism'. Or if it normally IS so labelled, I'm just behind on terminology and have conflated 'feminist' with 'activist for women's rights'. Oops.
I know full well what we are, how many of us there are, what we do, etc., and misogyny, like ageism, is a very big deal to me.
For instance, it irritates me that women used to be (still are?) mocked for our 'hormones' when it is clearly male hormones that have nearly destroyed our world, that result in the superior physical size and strength they use against others, and that seem beyond the power of too many males to control. Is it 'that time of the world', guys?...
dus7-
Why do you insist on countering a silly misogynistic stereotype with an equally silly misandrous stereotype? You write that "it irritates me that women used to be (still are?) mocked for our 'hormones' when it is clearly male hormones that have nearly destroyed our world". The differences between men's and women's behavior are shaped both by hormonal differences and by learned and culturally transmitted gender roles. The relative importance and nature of the role of each is a matter for nuanced scientific discussion, not crude simplistic stereotypes. While male hormones may play an important role in bar room brawls, how likely is it that they play the decisive role in the much more abstract decision making involved in conflicts of nation against nation of the sort that "have nearly destroyed our world"? There are some men who are staunch proponents of militarism and others, equally endowed with male hormones, who join the peace movement. A similar spectrum of opinion exists among women. Was Ann Coulter's ardent support for the Iraq war, or Condoleezza Rice's endorsement of the use of torture in the "War on Terror" a simple matter of male hormones? Clearly, political opinions have far more complex sources.
Of course the human condition is amazingly varied, with examples of everything we could possibly think of. Of course anything to do with humans is almost never binary and simplistic but is complex.
Nevertheless, look at the world we live in and look who's been in charge for millennia. Has it always been a few sociopathic males then and nothing to do with what makes them male? Women are subjugated, discriminated against, beaten and raped on every continent (dunno about Antarctica) to this day. Let's have a nuanced discussion about that, shall we?
"Nevertheless, look at the world we live in and look who's been in charge for millennia. Has it always been a few sociopathic males then and nothing to do with what makes them male? Women are subjugated, discriminated against, beaten and raped on every continent (dunno about Antarctica) to this day. Let's have a nuanced discussion about that, shall we?"
Poor people are dominated, discriminated, and yes, beaten and raped, too, all over the world, to this day. It isn't gender. It is power and power imbalances.
Jokes about "testosterone poisoning" are fine and funny, as long as they stay as jokes, and don't try to be serious analysis.
Sorry to disabuse you of your "equality thing" dus7, but as long as women are still struggling to access proper reproductive health care that THEY choose for their own bodies, as long as women remain underpaid in the workforce, as long as women remain overrepresented in domestic violence cases, and as long as a multimillion dollar sex trade in pornography and trafficing deprives girls and women of freedom and dignity, we are NOT talking about equality!
nellemason: Excellent post!
Misogyny has always been a huge part of imperialism, colonialism, and warfare.
Soldiers are taught to view the enemy not only as "Other" [less than human], but also as "female" ["less than masculine"].
Rape, especially of women, is an ancient weapon of war and terror. It is yet another kind of invasion and oppression, a power tactic.
Preventing women from having the essential human right to control what happens to their own bodies has always been the patriarchal way of exerting power and control over women. People who support such controls over women's bodies (women as well as men can be patriarchal) essentially fear, hate, and distrust women.
Read The Chalice and The Blade by Riane Eisler. It may change the way you see things.
And where are the newspaper sections for labor or working people?
Where are the sections for men's issues? The daily struggles of working men are rarely discussed.
Males are at a distinct educational disadvantage in America. College bound women now greatly outnumber college bound men. Our schools serve boys badly because so much of education has been feminized, but few feminists wish to discuss that.
In the family courts, it is practically an admission of guilt to be of the male gender. Men are assumed to be bad parents until proven otherwise.
Our culture and media provide many expressions of the woman's point of view, but very little coverage of the issues facing the average male. To portray the curent media environment asa "gender apartheid" that oppresses women is a gross over-simplification.
I'm surprised that you're having trouble seeing that men and men's views -particularly well-off men's views- are the default. There are no "men's issues sections" because *everything* is a "men's issues section" unless otherwise labeled. And even then....
You're right about well off men's view's being the norm; in fact the views ofthe upper middle class and wealthier dominate mass media. The view of well off men and working men are vastly different. This is the largest problem with the feminist analysis. It conflates all males into one category and is very short on consideration of class based oppression.
To say that "There are no "men's issues sections" because *everything* is a "men's issues section" unless otherwise labeled" is overworked boilerplate rhetoric and gross over-simplification. It rates as next to nothing as an argument.
It looks different from here.
perspective is everything
That is PRECISELY the point.
What perspective are you writing from?
Hint, men own more wealth than women. Another hint, across every educational level, women earn less income than similarly qualified men.
So, apply a working class / marxist analysis.
"This is the largest problem with the feminist analysis. It conflates all males into one category and is very short on consideration of class based oppression."
No it really doesn't.
"To say that "There are no "men's issues sections" because *everything* is a "men's issues section" unless otherwise labeled" is overworked boilerplate rhetoric and gross over-simplification. It rates as next to nothing as an argument."
No it isn't. It isn't anymore boilerpate than saying that everything is a well off men's issues section, or that everything is a well off white straight male's section.
"so much of education has been feminized,"
Just out of curiosity, which parts are those?
If you're really curious, try searching on "boys and eduational disadvantage." You will be in for quite an eye opener.
There is little consideration given to the unique needs of boys in school, but plenty to the needs of girls. This is reflected in an increasingly large gap between the educational achievement of boys and girls
The pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme in comparison to the 50's and 60's.
Joe, this is an urban legend. Boys have ALWAYS underperformed historically. We have ALWAYS had more female teachers than male -- poor wages and working conditions will do it every time. The concern (fear) about the emasculinization of boys at the hands of women (teachers and mothers) is cyclical and coincides with times of significant social change and economic insecurity. In the past boys could refuse an education and still get a good factory/industrial job. This is no longer true. Think about the images of men we hold as a Western society -- we admire athletes, the military, WWF. Scholarly men, well-read, intelligent men are considered effete and suspect. What are the chances of a man who is a well-educated scholar winning the presidency of the US?
"What are the chances of a man who is a well-educated scholar winning the presidency of the US?"
By which I guess you mean that--contrary to his press and ivy league certificates--Obama is not a "well educated" scholar.
I agree!!
Ah, now there's a question! Can a lawyer be a scholar?
Nelle, you brought the urban legend about emasculation of boys into this conversation. A blatant straw man fallacy (look it up).
It is no urban legend that the difference in school achievement between girls and boys has worsened extensively in the past 15 years. The widening gap in college attendance and graduation is not an urban legend. These are facts and the subject of extensive academic research. Look it up.
When the shoe was on the other foot two decades ago, and girls were underachieving, the underachievement was considered by feminists to be a priori evidence of discrimination. Now that boys are underachieving, many old school feminists want to blame the boys and ignore the problems with the educational system.
Nelle, you depict boys as "refusers of education", placing the blame on the victim here, rather than on the schooling methods. This glib negative stereotyping is the hallmark of a closed mind choosing preconceived prejudices over thoughtful analysis of new facts.
I agree 100%!!!
The women's ghetto is a disaster. It does keep people ignorant of the lives of women. Why DO we always talk about Israel and not the Congo? (Other than the obvious gag reflex).
"Women's issues" are also bad for women who so fixate on them that they fail to pay attention to other issues that are just as, if not more, important to their own lives. The Lily Ledbetter Act is not going to that much good in the new global structural adjustment economy, run by a handful of oligarchs who have put themselves completely above the law--including this little Ledbetter Act.
Narrow gendered focus can be a form of narcissism, and a very damaging one at that. I loathe despise RHReality Check and Feministing. The tenor of discourse is pure garbage. And alienating to anyone who wants to be a whole human being.
Don't even mention them.
Nostalgia for Chivalry empirePie
Well bless my sword
and my diapered hoard
Plastic love is the new Triple A
just sign on and throw away
drag me to the cave of lay away
The ‘I’ ....that burned out on the moon
and yellowed in the sun
turns chivalry’s arc Joan red
as warriors ponder
why is it us.... thats dead?
" Free to be Me"
from Stardust
Of all the things that I can be,
First--Earthling is my name.
Then human biped, next I am,
in that we're all the same.
American, then Irish too,
and that shows in my hair!
Yes, patriarchy is widespread,
we feel it everywhere.
But woman is what makes my form,
and that's just fine with me.
For woman/man why argue points,
if none of us are free?
Yes cleaning house just makes me bored
but garden dirt's my fix.
And reading's fun, but cooking's not,
what would you make of this?
Life is unfair for all of us,
I choose not fight nor flight.
What works for me, might not for you,
and really,that's all right.
My ME is mine, though I will share
ideas of every stripe.
But please don't dare to label me,
My choice, a human right!
***
Oh my... What a waste of breath this all is.
You want more female focused articles in the mainstream media?! WTF!!! Why would you even care?! Isn't it evident that the mainstream media is a complete load of bollocks in the first place? What an absolute waste of time. The media is a propaganda tool. Why would you even bother trying to change something so corrupted...
And please, there are vastly more important issues at stake here... I bet the people (Men as well as Women) in power are probably all too happy that people with otherwise good brains are wasting their time on such unimportant issues (after all conquer and divide). It is amazing to see how they manage to do it so easily in the US. Here we have the black community wanting equality for this, then the feminists who want that. I normally don't post here but it is so disheartening to see such potential wasted in such tremendously pathetic ways. Wake up for Whatever's sake! Whether you are a woman, a jobless father, a discriminated black or latino, everybody is fighting the same guys at the top... How about some unity here instead of following a joke such as what this article proposes???
You know, if a society can not even get its general structure right (i.e. corporations versus real citizens) how the hell do you want to go about achieving the right way in such comparatively small issues...
Day after day one has to read the articles that people realise that there are problems but nobody seems to have the brains to figure out that just about the whole country is affected by it... I could bang my head against the wall with frustration!
I guess the issue goes back to the wonderful american idea that we are all individuals which turns society into a "me, me, me!" hellpit. Please guys open your eyes and look at it all abit more hollistically rather than using the usual narrowminded "my people" approach. Cause if we don't, this country is going to go down the drain alot further and things are going to get alot worse.
P.S.: I have to agree with dreamjoehill and the Ghana article. There is nothing great about having more females in higher education or having males fail at school. Which sex is more likely to end up criminal, dealing drugs, running prostitution or whatnot if they don't manage to get a job? The US education system is broken. Having more females in College just means that more females will be educated to follow the path of the corporate slave worker uncluding its brainwashing...
And in terms of women in Ghana. Yes, you American centrists! There are plenty of women out in the world who lead a wonderful life and don't need a culturally blind American to come over and tell them that they should really try and have a career and be a man. If you attribute so many good things to feminism why is this country in such trouble? If you want a career then go get a career, the fact that you can now a days is a wonderful achievement of feminism but please learn to realise when that battle is won and learn to be open minded towards other, at the current time, vastly more important issues. Seriously Move on! Otherwise while you keep bickering on about women earning the same amount as men (Which btw is only going to change when women become men) 60 or whatnot % of the population is earning less and less. What good will it do you to earn the same as men if none of you earn enough to live a decent life...
And now, if you felt personally attacked by this, excellent! Please direct this energy towards more pressing needs such as getting corporations stripped off their personhood!
Why thank you, NoAnswers, mcoyote and dreamjoehill (and Ms Sundal), for pointing out to us poor misguided girls the error of our wilful ways! We really appreciate ‘Daddy’ (and Daddy’s little girl) telling us what ought to be ‘’important issues” for us — and for women in other parts of the world.
From now on we will not be worried that we are paid less than our male counterparts for doing the same job — we know that, in our culture, women only get a job for “pin money” or to fill the time between school and marriage and that any work that women do is, therefore, of less worth than that which men do.
From now on we will not want to go to ‘college’ and we will be content to *be* prostitutes and drug addicts, rather than wanting to ‘run’ them — we realize that, in our culture, women are meant to be purely decorative adornments or toys for the pleasure of men.
From now on we will never question the fact that men know what is best for us and for ‘their’ children — we recognize that, in our culture, “man is the head of woman as christ is the head of the church” and that wanting ‘more’ leads to discontent and divorce and other like things that cause this country to be in such trouble.
From now on we will not get our knickers in a twist because a woman has to wear a black tent with an eyeslit whenever she has to go out of the house — we understand that, in the woman’s culture, she could get raped if she didn’t, and that it would be her fault because she tempted some poor men who just couldn’t control themselves.
From now on we won’t be overly concerned when a mother decides to sew up her daughter’s genitals — we are aware that, in the girl’s culture, this will make her more valuable in the marriage market. We will ignore the girl’s cries when her husband literally rips her open to have sex with her, and does so again and again when she has been resewn after each time she gives birth, because after all he is only trying to ensure that whatever sprouts from her torn body is his alone.
How grateful we will be to live in a world where women … are three dimensional and valuable and admirable in their femaleness, and … men … are confident in themselves, because they are confident in their female counterparts.
Seriously, if any of you three (or Ms Sundal) were on fire I’d not cross the street to pee on you and put you out!
But kudos to Ms Rosen — and thanks to nellemason and Mairead too.
What's so incredibly tiresome about this stuff is that forty years ago we consoled ourselves by telling each other that when the new generations grew to adulthood, all the old sexism would be gone. Forty years! We should have known better, of course: racism is still virulent after sixty years.
It's the embedded classism in socialisation. It has to be. Boys are raised to expect authority without responsibility, and girls responsibility without authority.
It is a *massive* PITA!
"Seriously, if any of you three (or Ms Sundal) were on fire I’d not cross the street to pee on you and put you out!"
What a juvenile comment, but then your entire comment is a lot of tired, emotional rhetoric from the 1970's.
You create straw man arguments by attributng statements that we did not make to me and others.
"We will ignore the girl’s cries when her husband literally rips her open to have sex with her, and does so again and again when she has been resewn after each time she gives birth, because after all he is only trying to ensure that whatever sprouts from her torn body is his alone."
Too bad you are so anti-sex, you nasty male hating liar. Your statements merely support the stereotype of the hateful feminist.
Yes, how strange that 40 years on we still face the same problems. Oh, they're less-frequent now, that's true. There's definitely been progress. But FORTY YEARS!?