Young Feminists Split On Clinton

billythrilly7th said:

I think one of the biggest problems with the feminist movement is that no one knows what the hell it is anymore.

And this is my proof.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89050

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Well, HOPEFULLY it's about battling attitudes like that idiot Lawrence Summer's at Harvard, and it's about job and educational opportunities.

But no one's burning their bra anymore.

Bird of Prey said:

No, they have NOT been asking women to ditch philandering husbands since the inception of the movement. And yes, I can argue that's not true. That was hardly a priority.

Click to expand...

Priority? That would depend on who you ask, I guess, and the moment in time that you ask them. Regardless, since the inception it has been maintained that women should not be held to specific role/standard because of their sex. The notion of putting up with cheating husbands because "that's what men do" has always been a subject of attack in this regard. How can you sit there and say it hasn't? This is really becoming inane.

WendyNYC said:

But I'm not quite sure what you are arguing -- that feminist women will not vote for her because she stayed with her husband? I think that's way off-base.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. I was merely defending cethklein's position, which I don't personally agree with, from Bravo's--unfair, imo--condemnation.

Within feminist ideology, there's an argument to be had re Hillary's choices. To say that there isn't is disingenuous, imo. That's all.

robeiae said:

No matter what your personal take is, the fact remains that Hillary did exactly what the leaders of the movement had been asking women to NOT do, since the inception of the movement.

Click to expand...

I had a good rack of the old brain over this statement, and I think you're wrong. The movement tried and succeeded in getting laws passed that established a woman's right to leave her husband, but I can't think of any major figure or document that laid out the expectation that a woman is expected to leave a philandering husband. Unless, of course, you have knowledge of such a person or document. If you do, please edify me.

robeiae said:

Priority? That would depend on who you ask, I guess, and the moment in time that you ask them. Regardless, since the inception it has been maintained that women should not be held to specific role/standard because of their sex.

Click to expand...

The movement is about equality and that women should not be forced into a designated role.

Look, no matter what Hillary Clinton did regarding her husband, she was going to be the target of criticism. She sticks with him: she's a manipulative power monger using him to launch her into the White House. Or she's enslaved by her upbringing or inheritent inferiority, that she's dominated by Bill, and thus stands by her man no matter what. She doesn't stick with him: she's a weak, emotional woman crushed by her husband's infidelities, unwilling to do the Christian thing and forgive because she's irrationally distraught. It's all bullshit but she was going to be smeared any way she handled it. And the truth still is: it's their business. It's THEIR relationship.

billythrilly7th said:

I think one of the biggest problems with the feminist movement is that no one knows what the hell it is anymore.

Click to expand...

I really don't think it's that complicated. If you support equal rights for women, then you're a feminist. To expect all feminists to think exactly alike, and to agree on everything is asking rather a lot.

dolores haze said:

I really don't think it's that complicated. If you support equal rights for women, then you're a feminist. To expect all feminists to think exactly alike, and to agree on everything is asking rather a lot.

Click to expand...

'Tis true. Some of us even shave our armpits!

dolores haze said:

I had a good rack of the old brain over this statement, and I think you're wrong. The movement tried and succeeded in getting laws passed that established a woman's right to leave her husband, but I can't think of any major figure or document that laid out the expectation that a woman is expected to leave a philandering husband. Unless, of course, you have knowledge of such a person or document. If you do, please edify me.

Click to expand...

I can't, at the moment. And I'm not much on going into the attic to dig this stuff out. But I'm still surprised at the resistance, here:

The paradigm being challenged by the feminist movement, in the sphere of cultural institutions, was always that of the male-dominated culture, where women were relegated to a second-class status, where the scarlet A was unidirectional, where male transgressions were chalked up to natural male tendencies, and where female divorcees were social outcasts. Women who picked up the banner were expected to eschew this paradigm, in favor of one in which they were persons, first and foremost, equal to men in every respect. Thus their decisions were to be ones consistent with this change. And once again, the passive acceptance of infidelity was an aspect of the traditional paradigm.

I fully understand the argument that this is not a fair criticism, that this is a matter that should be kept personal, and that Hillary's choices in this regard are hers and hers alone to make. Christ, I agree with all of this. And I understand that many who would call themselves "feminists" also agree. But again, within the ideology, there is an argument to be had, based on the history of the movement and past expectations of adherents. To say this isn't so is, as I have already said, both incorrect and ahistorical.

And some of us still buy boxes and boxes of plastic wrap!!

Bird of Prey said:

Look, no matter what Hillary Clinton did regarding her husband, she was going to be the target of criticism. She sticks with him: she's a manipulative power monger using him to launch her into the White House. Or she's enslaved by her upbringing or inheritent inferiority, that she's dominated by Bill, and thus stands by her man no matter what. She doesn't stick with him: she's a weak, emotional woman crushed by her husband's infidelities, unwilling to do the Christian thing and forgive because she's irrationally distraught. It's all bullshit but she was going to be smeared any way she handled it. And the truth still is: it's their business. It's THEIR relationship.

Click to expand...

Look, I AGREE. But my personal opinion is inconsequestional to what I am saying, here.

robeiae said:

The paradigm being challenged by the feminist movement, in the sphere of cultural institutions, was always that of the male-dominated culture, where women were relegated to a second-class status, where the scarlet A was unidirectional, where male transgressions were chalked up to natural male tendencies, and where female divorcees were social outcasts. Women who picked up the banner were expected to eschew this paradigm, in favor of one in which they were persons, first and foremost, equal to men in every respect. Thus their decisions were to be ones consistent with this change. And once again, the passive acceptance of infidelity was an aspect of the traditional paradigm.

I fully understand the argument that this is not a fair criticism, that this is a matter that should be kept personal, and that Hillary's choices in this regard are hers and hers alone to make. Christ, I agree with all of this. And I understand that many who would call themselves "feminists" also agree. But again, within the ideology, there is an argument to be had, based on the history of the movement and past expectations of adherents. To say this isn't so is, as I have already said, both incorrect and ahistorical.

Click to expand...

In reality, it just became OK for women to cheat too. What a mess!

Oprah's done more for feminism in the last decade than did Betty, Helen and Erica Jong put together (ok, I exaggerate a bit there). But Oprah's not backing Hil is she?

Oh, I bolded Rob's word choices in the previous post because in a paragraph that discussed feminism, he managed to use male/men MORE than female/women and I thought that was note-worthy.

WendyNYC said:

But no one's burning their bra anymore.

Click to expand...

I know.

WendyNYC said:

But no one's burning their bra anymore.

Click to expand...

Considering a Victoria's Secret Bra goes for $45, can ya blame them?









That's two comical posts for the price of one.

It's my New Year's special.

robeiae said:

Look, I AGREE. But my personal opinion is inconsequestional to what I am saying, here.

Click to expand...

I think you are arguing the position - and I know it's not your position - that the feminist movement had certain social expectations regarding the complexities of male/female relationships. And by arguing such, it once again puts the definition of the role of women in context to to their relationships with men. That is not what feminism is. Simply put, the movement espouses the right of women to function as free members of society.

William Haskins said:

you would be well-served in remembering this as the campaign progresses. your body of commentary thus far indicates that equality is the furthest thing from your mind.

you're looking for some type of affirmative action double standard and, when it's not incredibly amusing, it's fairly sickening.

Click to expand...

Oh bullshit.

William Haskins said:

heh. start a poll.

i dare ya...

Click to expand...

Oh I have no doubt. . . . None at all.

And I have no regrets either.

Magdalen said:

Oh, I bolded Rob's word choices in the previous post because in a paragraph that discussed feminism, he managed to use male/men MORE than female/women and I thought that was note-worthy.

Click to expand...

Why? Considering that the content of the post you did this in was critical of patriarchal aspects of society, an implicit condemnation of those aspects in fact, I'm not sure why your observation is significant in any way, whatsoever.

If you're playing around, good enough. But if you think you've just noted something of substance, own up to it and say what it is. Frankly, word-counting in this manner suggests post-modernist nonsense to me. CG's board is a little slow, so I'm sure he wouldn't mind expanding this discussion in the direction you apparently want to take it. Ask him to port it over.

*Sigh* You know, there's a reason why young feminists aren't big backers of Hillary. It's called the Democratic Leadership Council. The corporate-friendly Democrats and Hillary's one of them. That is all.

Mostly yanking your chain, Rob

Bird of Prey said:

I think you are arguing the position - and I know it's not your position - that the feminist movement had certain social expectations regarding the complexities of male/female relationships. And by arguing such, it once again puts the definition of the role of women in context to to their relationships with men.

Click to expand...

No, that's merely how you choose to look at it. Again, the point is that actions consistent with the traditional paradigm serve to buttress that paradigm, not break it. You want to maintain that Hillary made a free choice to stay with Bill, irrespective of the traditional paradigm and the social pressures it entails. Good enough.

But it can just as easily be argued that she accepted the traditional paradigm and, for all intents and purposes, turned a blind eye to Bill's cheating ways. You think that's not right, I think that's not right. But those are our opinions and I would say that our opinions are as much a product of the public nature of the two as anything else. I'd bet that the reaction of most independent women would be more along the lines of Wendy's opinion from earlier.

That is not what feminism is. Simply put, the movement espouses the right of women to function as free members of society.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's the goal. But for those who desire to work towards that goal, there is a methodology.

Magdalen said:

Mostly yanking your chain, Rob

Click to expand...

I actually assumed so, but you're a chick, so I wasn't sure...

InfinityGoddess said:

*Sigh* You know, there's a reason why young feminists aren't big backers of Hillary. It's called the Democratic Leadership Council. The corporate-friendly Democrats and Hillary's one of them. That is all.

Click to expand...

Heh. I'm in complete agreement with such feminists and--apparently--IG.

Lock thread! The Apocalypse is at hand!

(well, it was bound to happen, eventually)