Follow Up: Responding to Julia

In order to answer Julia’s question, (“Do we need to personally experience men’s arrogance to again push the “second wave” forward to a new point of extreme change?”) we must look to Ellen Neuborne’s essay, Imagine My Surprise. Even Neuborne, a devout feminist, became the subject of her own preaching when she failed to stand up to chauvinism in the work place. While the reader is tempted to judge Neuborne for not “raising her voice”, she throws the situation back to the her audience, “Do you think you would recognize sexism at work immediately? Are you sure? Programming is a powerful thing. It makes you lazy. It makes you vulnerable. And until you can recognize that it’s there, it works for the opposition.”

Neuborne’s perspective leaves us with a bleak outlook on the second wave of feminism. If every woman needs to not only experience sexism, but also recognize it in order to act, we are a very, very long way away from achieving the goals of the feminist movement. That said, there is a great irony to this situation. Elizabeth Cady Stanton points out, “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her,” (Stanton, 71). If this statement is true, why have so few women spoken up? More importantly, why are so few women outraged?

Part of the reason may be that women have tried to fight back, yet only to receive more ridicule and subordination. Whether it is women like Neuborne displaying their intellectual capacity in the workforce or women like Sojourner Truth competing physically with men, very little has gotten their attention, let alone respect. As Truth cries, “Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman?” (Sojourner, 1851).

Back to Julia’s question, I think the reason we are reading about women like Neuborne and Truth today is because they did experience men’s arrogance and were furious. In order to have every woman truly committed to the feminist movement, each and every one must experience sexism in order to feel the powerful, rallying force of indignation. When women achieve this collectively, there will be no stopping the second feminist wave.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

While reading The Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Conference of 1848, I was particularly struck by the first sentence of the second paragraph:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

I found this to be extremely compelling because it is so simply stated that one cannot help but read that and respond with “yes, absolutely!” If this is the case, then how is it possible that for so long in this country women have been subjugated by men and by the government, showing complete disregard for the Constitution’s demands? I also completely agree with Julia in that I find it ridiculous that men would attempt to promise such things such as equal rights for women when clearly these were empty promises. Don’t bother making a promise like that if you are clearly going to totally disregard it. Luckily, all of this engendered anger in women and gave them the opportunity to rise above and really show how powerful they are as a group to defy the odds and actually stand up to men.

After reading the list of “injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman” I too realized how far we have come. Not only have women overcome all of these boundaries that not too long ago they were unable to defeat, they have managed to go above and beyond all initial expectations. This is not to say that there is not still work to be done in terms of equality in the workplace as well as the need to banish the stereotypical expectations that men tend to hold of women, but based on The Declaration of Sentiments alone, vast progress has been made.

Women are independent beings that have come a long way, and as Sojourner Truth stated, “Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him”. So, where do men come off being the dominant sex? In response to Julia’s question, I think that whether women are “pushed” into this “second wave” of feminism or enter it on their own free will is not the issue, it’s that they do something about it when they have the opportunity rather than sitting back and letting men take control.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

I agree with Julia that all these women have helped create change for women by working to provide equal rights. I was particularly struck by Sojourner Truth's speech "Ain't I a Woman?" which carries a powerful message, revealing themes that continue to resonate powerfully within modern society. I definitely agree with Julia that Sojourner Truth took the anger she felt from men’s artificial gestures of respect, to display women’s power. In addition, I felt that in her speech, Truth was addressing both women and men in separate arguments. To the women, Truth stated that if the first woman God was powerful enough to "turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!" (Truth, 1851). Truth inspires in the women that if they work together, they can achieve anything. Women must take control over their lives and claim their place in society. Conversely, I think that Truth attempts to dissuade the men in the audience from maintaining stereotypical opinions that women should be "helped into carriages and lifted over ditches" (Truth, 1851).

The speech continues to inspire modern day feminists, both black and white. Women are able to vote, due to Truth’s and other suffragists’ work. Women are also able to hold jobs other than babysitters and housekeepers. Women are highly educated and although women aren’t always seen as equal to men, they are not seen as inferior as they once were. Society as a whole accepts and respects women and their efforts, accomplishments and contributions. The possibilities for women are limitless and I wonder where this will take us in the future.

In addressing Julia's question on how we make sure we are aware of the
actions around us, I think it is important for women to continue to
stand up for their rights and work towards equal opportunity in every
sphere of society. Women should share ideas and have conferences
discussing these issues making them known to the public.

Main Post for 1/27

In each of the readings for today’s blog post, female disappointment in male hypocrisy is evident. In her article on the first and second waves on feminism, Ellen DuBois points to the intense role male incompetence has played in the success of the women’s movement. Although this idea is seemingly paradoxical, DuBois suggests that as women realized that they were being oppressed and ignored by men in even the most “radical” spheres, they truly took charge of their movement and forced change to occur.

DuBois specifically points to several instances when men’s actions conflict with their words of promise to help women. For example, Wendell Phillips, a leader of abolitionist forces, promised women that as soon as he started working towards black suffrage, he would also focus on doing the same for women. However, DuBois points out that two years later, black people won the right to vote while women found themselves without progress in their movement.

Similary, the treatment that women experienced during their work in the abolitionist movement displays the tendency of many men to ignore women’s demands for equal treatment and respect. Placed in jobs as secretaries or organizational background workers, women were held doing “shitwork” (DuBois, 1) despite their undeniable drive and ability to aid in the abolitionist movement. Men, on the other hand, were always given jobs at the forefront of the movement-giving speeches, heading the projects, and most importantly, making the decisions.

When they were refused seats as delegates at an anti-slavery convention in London, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott refused to wait idly backstage, despite orders to do so. Instead, they took a walk to discuss the women’s movement and just eight years later, they took this drive to be at the forefront of change, and hosted the first women’s convention for equal rights. Additionally, in her speech on the ability of women to live and behave just as men do, Sojourner Truth took the anger she felt from men’s artificial gestures of respect, such as helping women in to carriages, to display a convincing argument in the name of women’s power and strength.

Although these arrogant acts by men were certainly disappointing and potentially discouraging to the women working towards equal rights, these women were determined and driven to succeed. Therefore, these women took the incompetence of many men and used it as motivation and inspiration to work towards a better future.

However, while the artificial acts of concern and enthusiasm by men eventually do inspire women to take action, these pretend acts did serve to suggest progress and change that was not really happening. As we have discussed in class, much of the workplace today is changed on the outside, however internally and deceivingly, many men still create a divide between women and men, though their actions may not be so obvious. Therefore, I wonder, how do we make sure we are aware of the actions around us in order to avoid male oppression? Also, do we need to personally experience men’s arrogance to again push the “second wave” forward to a new point of extreme change? Or is this determination something that can be formulated without the “push” of men’s condescending behavior?

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

Undoubtedly, there have been many women who are unsatisfied and unfulfilled with their role as wife, mother, and homemaker. The majority of this disgruntlement comes from the fact that for so long, women were given no choice in the matter; women were expected to become housewives and nothing more.

Today, however, women live in a very different world. While inequality in the workplace remains a major barrier to career-seeking women, the opportunity to choose life outside the family and home is tremendous. I, for example, have grown up with an emphasis on taking care of myself and withholding from marriage until I have truly found my own path. That said, I am incredibly excited for the day when I become a wife and, hopefully, a mother. I have always seen motherhood as a beautifully strong, challenging role, especially with the demands of our changing world. Does the fact that I want to embrace this type of "femininity" make me a bad person? Or worse, a bad woman?

Rachel's affirmation of Betty Friedan's stereotypical housewife makes me wonder about the value system of the entire feminist movement. Is there such a thing as being a good feminist? Is choosing motherhood over my elite education and potential a travesty? Absolutely not! Children's caretakers have by far the most important and influential role in shaping the youth of our future. If society does not recognize and support this task, then the responsibility of being a wife, mother, and homemaker is trivialized.

Perhaps I say this from my comfortable, opportunity ridden position of being an educated woman in the 21 century. I truly believe, however, that if these women had been empowered to value and cherish their imperative role and had been given the support and encouragement of the men around them, motherhood would carry a far better reputation than it did and still does today.

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

As Rachel mentioned in her post, I too found Betty Friedan’s excerpt, The Feminine Mystique, extremely compelling and thought provoking. Her argument that “the core of the problem for women today is a problem of identity,” (Friedan, 48) was especially memorable to me. Friedan suggests that women struggled from feelings of lost purpose and meaning as their work at home became increasingly automatic and mindless.

This idea of women’s work as automatic, and therefore, of women as somewhat replaceable and inconsequential, is definitely a theme still common in movies, tv, and even some realities today. For example, the 2004 movie The Stepford Wives, depicts a seemingly problem free town with beautiful women enthusiastically focused on their jobs of pleasing their husbands. As the Stepford wife in the following photo shows, these women are passionate and excited to bake, cook, or do whatever it is that will satisfy their husbands. http://www.lebleb.com/images/star_galeri/Nicole%20Kidman/The%20Stepford%20Wives.2.

A new couple in town, however, is bewildered by these seemingly flawless couples with wives so willing, and even excited, to program and define their lives around the desires of their husbands. By the end of the movie, however, the newcomers to the town realize that the women of the town have been transformed in to robots and are therefore, machines rather than human beings.

As Friedan suggests in her essay, housewives are dehumanized as their jobs and livelihood become automatic and are sometimes reduced to the work of mechanical equipment. Understandably, many of these housewives feel unfulfilled and unhappy as they lose both purpose and meaning to themselves and their lives. If their work is uninspiring and mindless, these women sometimes do not receive the chance to challenge themselves. Instead, they become thoughtless objects used and defined purely based off of their male counterpart.

Do men enjoy women who are thoughtless and act much as decoration and tools towards their own furthered pleasure? Ariel Levy quotes Hugh Hefner as saying he likes “innocent, affectionate, faithful girls,” and that when he wants to think, he “stays with men,” (Levy, 59). In other words, Hefner suggests that he regards men as mentally exciting and stimulating while he views women as passive, loving, and loyal-similar characteristics used to describe a pet dog, or in Levy’s words, a “bunny.” Perspectives like Hefner’s propel me to wonder if all men enjoy women solely for the “pet” qualities they maintain? Further, how can women ensure that they maintain their identity and respect as human beings despite the demeaning opinions of people like Hugh Hefner?

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

In response to Rachel’s post, I too found Betty Friedan’s excerpt from The Feminine Mystique to be extremely thought provoking. Rachel posed a question, “What are the greatest barriers/opportunities of being a woman in the workplace and concurrently caring for a family?” Besides stating the obvious, that women are definitely not equal to men in the workplace and are constantly facing male chauvinists who believe women are incapable of performing tasks like a man can, working mothers face the judgment of other mothers that do not work. Although this may not be a barrier necessarily in the workplace, it is surely a barrier in the community that working mothers must overcome. I know that working mothers definitely face judgments and ridicule from other mothers that are always around to care for their children, make them meals, attend all of their sporting events, etc.

On the other hand, I know that women that have occupations as well as care for their families can also tend to look down upon those mothers that choose to stay home and be a “housewife”, or “homemaker”. There are many women that make the choice to raise their children and be there at all times whenever they are needed, and for this they should not be looked down upon as living the stereotypical life of a female.

As I read Betty Friedan’s excerpt, two films came to mind. I first thought of the movie Pleasantville, and how the mother in the movie is so content with her life of laundry, cleaning, cooking, and food shopping, but begins to realize actually how unhappy she is stuck in her little bubble. I found a scene in the movie that I find to be funny but when I think about how real it still is for some women in today’s world I began to wonder if it was actually “funny”. How can women overcome the idea that they don’t necessarily have to be home at dinnertime with food on the table and a smile on their face? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZiKAskjPF8

I also thought of the movie, Revolutionary Road, which portrays an extremely depressing outlook on life for a female. Women are supposed to get married, move to the suburbs, have children, and raise them to be good people. After I watched it I literally asked myself, “Is that all there is?” even though I was raised to know how important a career is. As a female, one cannot help but watch this movie and question their future. Warning: there is bad language in this scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I-56Xyr0Bw

Main Post for 1/26

Among the readings for today’s blog, I was particularly struck by Betty Friedan’s excerpt from The Feminine Mystique, Feminist in Our Time. She argues that for so many decades, the only way for a woman to be feminine was to get married, have kids and have a well-kept house. Having multiple children was the norm, and running a household was considered a career. Friedan analyzes why women, brought up with these socially accepted views, are suddenly finding themselves wanting more. I found it interesting that she blamed this emptiness on the idealized image that society formed for these women of that era.

Things have definitely changed from the times of 1950s and 1960s. In most parts of the world, the role of women in the workplace is being appreciated and acknowledged. For this, I think it’s important to understand 3 questions:

· How has women’s role in the workplace changed over time?

· What are the greatest barriers/opportunities of being a woman in the workplace and concurrently caring for a family?

· What support structures at home and/or at work could help to achieve greater balance?

Another interesting point is that Friedan’s opinions continue to permeate society today. For example, her concepts have become the basis for the prime-time series “Desperate Housewives.” Should this show be taken as a respectful nod to one of feminism's legendary icons? Or is it poking fun at the stereotype of the suburban housewife? The women of this show bring color to the image Friedan presents as the “suburban housewife” (53). Friedan discuses the suburban dream, that left women incomplete, with a “problem that has no name” (55). Similarly, the “Desperate” ladies are all missing something major in their lives. They are all incompetent in their own unique, stereotypical way making them unable to attain true success. Despite being wealthy, beautiful, and living in polished homes, they're plagued by numerous problems leaving them unfulfilled. What can society do to change these stereotypes?

Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

Levy addresses how American society perceives sex and women. She asserts that instead of viewing the confident, self-determined, powerful, free ideal the women’s liberation movement, our icons have become porn stars, strippers and prostitutes. Her book makes me wonder: Why have strippers and porn stars been adopted as role models?

I agree with Hilary that Levy stresses the importance of the responsibility of women to present a positive image of their gender and sexuality. This notion reminded me of Brandi Chastain, who, at the 1999 Women's World Cup, scored the championship-winning goal and celebrated the victory by ripping off her jersey and falling to her knees in jubilant triumph. Her “sporting body” (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/08/22/2009-08-22_brandi_chastain.html) reveals the complicated relationship between athletic females in relation to sports and dominant notions of femininity today. I’ve noticed that the media coverage of female athletes tends to focus on their physical appearance and sexual attractiveness by portraying female athletes, not as powerful or strong, but as seductive, sexy, and vulnerable, a topic which Levy discusses in depth. When Brandi’s image first surfaced, writers for several magazines and newspapers explicitly used sexual innuendos to describe it. Sportscasters called it a “striptease” and deemed her the owner of the most talked-about breasts in the country.

I disagree with how these writers perceived her image. I think Brandi’s picture is a source of inspiration and a positive image that challenges the male-centered gender ideology that is promoted and reproduced in sports. Male soccer players often rip off their shirts and twist them over their heads after scoring a goal without provoking criticism. Chastain emulated this; it was simply an act of exuberance. We should not view this as “wrong” or “un lady-like.” Rather, this image captures the new meaning of the female form – powerful, fit, and independent. Her image reflects the hope that more athletes will be provided with opportunity to dispel the myths surrounding the gender ideology.

However, just like the female athletes Levy discussed who took time out of their rigorous training schedules to appear naked in Playboy, after the World Cup, Brandi posed nude in a magazine, just holding soccer balls to cover her body. What do these female athletes, by posing nude and separating themselves from the sports arena, hope to express to the public? Is it partially thier responsibility to fix the challenges women face? Despite the controversy surrounding these images, it will be useful to investigate the driving factors of these female athletes for posing nude.

Main Post for 1/21

While our readings thus far have varied in their feminist content and perspectives, I have noted a particularly interesting commonality among them: the question of responsibility. This question not only encompasses who is responsible for the challenges women face, but also who is responsible for “fixing” these challenges. The notion of responsibility in the feminist movement is not only complicated, but downright disagreed upon. It is easy to point fingers at those who are overtly supporting women’s subornation and inferiority, but what about those with a neutral or apathetic stance? Is complacency with the status quo as egregious as creating it? Should men and women play an equal role in today’s burgeoning feminist movement?

I began thinking about these questions after reading Ellen Neuborne’s essay on the problems of a post-feminism world. For Neuborne, the issue of responsibility lies not with the men who degrade women, but with the women who fail to stand up to such men, “It is a dangerous thing to assume that just because we were raised in a feminist era, we are safe. We are not. They are still after us,” (Neuborne, 184). While I agree with Neuborne’s empowering message, it seems that this mentality puts an unfair burden of responsibility on women to carry and continue the feminist movement. Should men not also be held accountable?

Ariel Levy speaks to the responsibility of women over men as well, yet she refers to a completely different demographic. She argues that the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon illustrates the embarrassing role that young women are playing to stall, if not reverse, the feminist efforts of the previous generation. To me, it seemed clear that Levy was working towards a thesis on the responsibility these women have to present a positive image of their gender and sexuality. At the end of the chapter, however, Levy throws in a remark that left me very surprised, “But even though this new world of beer and babes feels foreign to sixties revolutionaries, it is actually also a repercussion of the very forces they put in motion – they are the ones who started this,” (Levy, 45).

It seems audacious to accuse the very people who have fought to change the way the world sees women of causing the “raunchy culture” of today, but perhaps Levy is right. This is not to say that the feminist movement should never have occurred, but rather that Girls Gone Wild is simply a mandatory (and embarrassing) phase in its evolution. Unless, of course, you believe that Girls Gone Wild is not a phase but the end result of feminism. If this proves to be true, the question of responsibility gets even more confused. Is equality at the expense of a woman’s body really progress? If not, whom do we blame?

At the end of her essay Neuborne declares, “The next generation is coming,” (Neuborne, 187). It is evident that women have a responsibility to do something, yet whether that means fighting back with words or against each other in jello pits is unclear.