In my last post, I spoke about marriage and family - how these are are oppressive social arrangements that are perhaps best adapted for patriarchal nuclear families, how many of us, especially the underprivileged, labor under the expectations that come with 'family values', and how obsession with giving your children the best and leaving them a hefty inheritance makes family units selfish. I proposed that, as the ecological imperative on reducing human population also becomes more pressing, perhaps we need to do away with reproduction, getting over whatever biological/psychological impulses there are for making babies. What I perhaps failed to emphasize was that I was proposing a structural and cultural change to reduce the obsession with reproduction, and not advocating any Draconian law enforcement measures that would persecute those who do want to make babies.
The view I gave was that of a radical - a radical feminist who can't reconcile with women being put to reproductive and domestic labor, an anarchist against institutional practices, and an environmentalist who believes in the inherent value of the biosphere. Such views are perhaps rightly criticized for being too pie-in-the-sky, obsessed with a revolution that is not happening anytime soon and not concerned with immanent realities.
The reality is that many women DO get pregnant and DO end up getting hitched. It might be that they felt in some way pressured to go for it. Or that they actually wanted to because of their internalization of the patriarchal emphasis on motherhood. Or even simply that they just wanted to experience what motherhood feels like and simply chose to be indifferent to the difficulties that might come along with it. The point is that they are women who are just as oppressed, if not more so, by cultural attitudes and institutionalized discrimination, and the last thing they need is radical feminists telling them is that motherhood is evil.
So while a critique of marriage and family is valuable, the reality is that the State and corporation-based institutions encourage married unions through distribution of economic and social benefits, and in a capitalist society marked by scarcity, we depend all too heavily on institutions. We can be institution-rejectin’ anarchists on principle, but when it comes to living our lives, we have to be pragmatic. Also, for a lot of us, a family life does give a meaningful dimension to the banality of everyday life. Of course a cultural change could take care of that, and we could find meaning in other experiences that life has to offer. But as things stand now, although it makes sense to demystify motherhood and work to reduce the society's obsession with it, feminist activism should not detach itself from the experiences of mothers and mothers-to-be and the social and legal issues concerning them.
Here, another clarification is in order: my discussion on the end of marriage is not to be applied to LGBT rights activism for gay marriage, because as long as marriage exists, LGBT activists are justified in demanding an end to its heterosexual bias. Demanding institutional recognition of same-sex unions underscores the gay rights activists' struggle for eliminating discrimination of alternate sexualities at the institutional level. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough, because as they face marginalization by the society, the LGBT community needs all its help from institutions.
And perhaps just such activism concerned with redefining marriage and making it less oppressive and exclusionary will save the day. And maybe then people will be less obsessed with reproduction too.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Marriage and Family: Understanding Radical Views and Realities.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11331
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Ha! You're in favor of gay marriage but heterosexual marriage oppresses stupid women who fall victim to patriarchy or are naively "indifferent" to the hardships of motherhood. I love it. You're absurd.
What about love? What about the capacity for emotional relationships? If we're just to be rational machines, then computers do a much better job at logic and reasoning: we're already obsolete. The human brain is not a symbol cruncher; it's much more like a connectionist machine (basing decisions on experiences).
What makes human beings special is their morals, intellect, art, creativity, and capacity for friendship and FAMILIAL love. Being a parent and being part of a love relationship allows one to (potentially) reach one of the heights of human achievement.
Lucinda,
I did not write 'naively' indifferent. I said 'chose to be indifferent'. Perhaps I should've been clearer, but I was talking about women who think of motherhood as an important part of their human experience.
The over-all tone of the women-who-chose-motherhood paragraph is more empathic than insulting.
Also, I wrote '*as long as marriage exists*, LGBT activists are justified in demanding an end to its heterosexual bias'.
Stop commenting on what you think I wrote.
And your attack on the choice on not to reproduce as a rational, machine-like choice is the reason why I talked how for me this choice was out of emotions and not just 'logic' and 'reasoning'.
Boy, you really can't take a hint, can you? Even when it's all written out in black and white like in Lucinda's articulate and humane reply.
I watched the other thread, and based on both your posts, as well as your replies in both threads, it sounds to me like the issue here is that you're rather repressively terrified at the thought of anything to do with reproduction - from the sex that can result in conception right onto the emerging relationship with the resulting child (which is a relationship of dependence on you, and therefore one which would require you to be adult and responsible in a way that the vast majority of people don't need to be before having a child of their own), going through the gestational period itself, the birthing process, and the inevitable link that will be forged with the man with whom you cook up the child (even if it's the result of a casual screw and you can't stand the sight of one another long enough to have a go at a relationship, you'd still have mixed your genetic material with the guy).
Your presumption that women who have kids (ie, most women in the bloody known universe) are repressed creatures in need of empathy shows your argument for what it is: the poorly thought-out production of a young (or young-in-the-head) woman who is afraid of something that is a momentous event in any woman's life, but who is also too hypocritical to admit she's simply scared; afraid that pregnancy or birth could hurt or go horribly wrong, that she would be no good as a parent and her grown kid(s) would be indifferent to her, that she would fail at leaving this world a better place for her progeny. Guess what? Everybody's afraid of those things (and that includes guys, even to some lesser extent for the first part. When women get morning sickness, for example, a lot of men want the earth to open up and swallow them whole, 'cause they feel irrationally guilty for 'doing this to the woman they love'). Everybody's afraid of those things, or to put it more accurately IN AWE of them (it's what they call 'putting the fear of god into you', lol; you realise the enormity of the thing), and usually the first step to getting over this fear is to admit you have it, then start working through it using the well-known panacea against all fear: knowledge. Anybody with any little bit of sense or sensitivity is scared. on some level, and even people who seemed totally happy-go-lucky and irresponsible before they became parents will get shaken up at the idea, and hit the baby books or run to mum and dad for advice .
In short: stop listening to the pregnancy/birth scare stories, study up on your biology 101 for a reminder of what an absolutely fascinating process human reproduction actually is, then just get a grip (heck, I find myself saying this rather too much on Feministing).
And kindly stop calling yourself a radical (anything). There's absolutely nothing radical in terms of environmentalism in advocating the extinction of a species (for god's sake!), nothing radical for feminism in saying women should simply stop giving birth as a helpful concession to oppression (god, what a shocking display of spinelessness!), and most definitely, nothing anarchist in saying the continuation of humanity is a victory for repression. Repression is the opposite of life. In order to beat all that, we have to go on existing; oppressive regimes have long used the trick of limiting reproduction in the groups they oppress*. The biggest feminist fuck you, to borrow a term from elsewhere on this site, is to have a bunch of kids, and raise them all to be responsible, assertive, and balanced individuals, who find their own way in life in kindness and compassion. While you still have another profession you like if you want it, or none if you don't, and find enough love in your heart for the father (if he's worth it, which one hopes you made sure he was before you got to kid number 2, at least), and reserving a bit of combativeness to work on behalf of those who don't have your luck. You do that, I'll take my hat off to you. Actually, I'll take it off if you do much less than that.
By definition, the winner in a fight is the last one standing. What you advocate is rolling over and saying "I give up!"
I'll be damned if I do that.
*China's stringent one child policy, anyone? Not to get started on the historic examples, which are legion *rolleyes*
Oh please. Lucinda's response showed that she hadn't read the op very well, and that she enjoys jumping to conclusions without carefully examining the position of the author. In your book that may amount to being articulate and humane, but it's a strange use of the words.
And mona, your consistently insulting tone, condescending manner, lack of organization in your thoughts, and perpetual use of ad hominems is not particularly helpful in any feminist conversation. Get over yourself already and learn to read other people's comments in a thorough manner rather than simply responding to what you imagine them to be saying.
I think you make a good point about feminism involving a fight against the societal restrictions of gender roles, and that all people are involved.
However, the point remains that "drag queens" are ridiculing women and making them seem ridiculous. I'm not keen on these caricatures of women.
I respectfully disagree. I think that drag queens are ridiculing the social construction of femininity. Mocking and ridiculing the scripts that a society expects its members to perform is almost always a good thing, and it doesn't amount to mocking or ridiculing the people themselves.
Your replies come very close to personal attacks, and, yet, ironically you're often accusing others of using ad hominem attacks.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a person's argument and attacking them personally. I often attack the claims that other people make, and I'll admit that I'm snarky and sarcastic at times. But I never reduce their position to an emotional reaction such as hysteria, as mona regularly does. This is straight-up anti-feminist behavior, which the patriarchy has used for centuries in order to silence women and other marginalized groups. I also read the comments of other commenters and posters carefully in order to avoid misinterpreting them and attributing ideas to them that they don't actually hold. That's quite different from using an ad hominem in which you fail to respond to the other persons argument or claims and instead attack them personally.
Lucinda,
I did not write 'naively' indifferent. I said 'chose to be indifferent'. Perhaps I should've been clearer, but I was talking about women who think of motherhood as an important part of their human experience.
The over-all tone of the women-who-chose-motherhood paragraph is more empathic than insulting.
Also, I wrote '*as long as marriage exists*, LGBT activists are justified in demanding an end to its heterosexual bias'.
Stop commenting on what you think I wrote.
And your attack on the choice on not to reproduce as a rational, machine-like choice is the reason why in my previous post I mentioned how for for me this choice was out of emotional reactions rather than just 'logic' and 'reasoning'.
I wasn't aware that marriage and the nuclear family were the only contexts in which people could love each other.
And being deeply critical of the institution of marriage as it's practiced in our culture is perfectly consistent with supporting same-sex marriage. I have some profound issues with marriage, and wonder at times why gay people even bother with trying to gain access to it, but still support their right to it. For one thing, bestowing rights and privileges on one group while withholding them from another is deeply problemaitc. But another reason to support same-sex marriage is that, because there aren't any pre-existing, built-in gender norms and expectations, same-sex marriage helps to break down the gendered bullshit that comes with hetero marriage by being a counterexample. Generally speaking, the division of work in same-sex households is more equitable. Having examples of relationships in which these things are negotiated between the couple rather than being dictated by societal expectations is good for everyone.
I don't buy it. Gay people are never sexist?
If I had the nerve, I'd start a post about the incredible sexism involved in the non-traditional lifestyle of female impersonators (drag queens). I'm appalled by the way they exaggerate and ridicule "feminine" qualities, "feminine" dress and "feminine" behavior to portray being a woman as being a ridiculous, make-up obsessed, silly, and boy-crazy creature.
It seems to be that feminism and gay rights are separate issues, which are forever being mixed into one on this website.
That being said, I can't believe the original post for this thread. First marriage and parenthood is trashed and then the author thinks "Oops" and gives a politically correct shout out to gay marriage. It's amazing.
Oh, did I say gay people are never sexist? Where did I say that?
In several studies done in the late 90s and early 2000s, they found that in general (with some exception, of course) gay couples spend a more equitable amount of time on domestic chores than hetero couples. Citing this statistic is not the same as claiming that gay people are never sexist.
And I think perhaps you need to go back and read the op more carefully. The claim was not that gay marriage is good while hetero marriage is bad. This is what freethinkr actually said
as long as marriage exists, LGBT activists are justified in demanding an end to its heterosexual bias
Note that this is a conditional statement. An accurate paraphrase of it would be "as long as heterosexual marriage exists as the norm in our culture, we should allow same-sex couples to marry in order to avoid discriminating against them." Do you see how this is very different from your interpretation of it?
Here's another nice conditional...
If we continue to NOT do as I suggest and pollute the environment, then we should make sure to pollute the northern neighborhood as much as we pollute the southern neighborhoods.
I don't really see how marriage and pollution make a great analogy. Marriage is, among other things, a way that we confer rights and privileges on individuals in our society. Conferring those on one group and excluding the other is inherently unjust.
In an argument from analogy, if the two things you're comparing aren't very similar, in a relevant way, then your argument is very weak.
I'm just jumping on the poster's environmentalist bandwagon.
I don't really see how that's a response. You may not agree with the OP regarding gay rights or the environment, and that's fine, but how does that justify faulty reasoning? I don't see how it follows.
And the reason why many, many feminist theorists argue in favor of connections between environmental degradation, racism, homophobia, etc and sexism is that all of them reflect a patriarchal attitude held by those in power, and are inter-connected systems of oppression. You say that you don't know why feminists have to keep bringing these things up, and if you're sincerely interested I would recommend an introductory feminist theory reader. These are generally pretty accessible and cover a wide range of theories and feminist positions.
If you don't femininity is a social construct, if you don't think feminism should be about opposing the man-woman divide that oppresses both women and those who don't fit it in it (us gender deviants), then I think you need to get yourself a feminist primer.
Feminism isn't just about 'empowerfulized' women (as Twisty Faster puts it)... it's about challenging the gendered social constructs and institutions.
I think you make a good point about feminism involving a fight against the societal restrictions of gender roles, and that all people are involved.
However, the point remains that "drag queens" are ridiculing women and making them seem ridiculous. I'm not keen on these caricatures of women.`
Me neither. But let's be clear that drag queens does not equal transvestites.
Also, not only is LGBT activism and feminism is related, but it can be argued that feminism is about ending all kinds of oppression, because most structures of oppression are built on what feminist theorists call 'hegemonic masculinity'. But that's a future post...
So, in your view, it's not possible to point out how ridiculous the gender norms and characteristics that a culture imposes on people are without actually making fun of the people themselves? Because I disagree. The fact that society expects women to be this way is ridiculous, and I can say that without ridiculing any particular woman or group of women.
Lucinda, I am all for alternate models of cohabitation and child-rearing! But in the imagination of the conservative, family is pretty much a monolith.
Follow this link to a right-wing 'Family Research Council' http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1
They make a very good case of how 'unmarried women who have children', 'divorced families', and 'same-sex couples with children' are not "good" families.
[of course i know that when they mention that crap about the 'psychological well-being of children', they fail to suggest that it may be because of the social premium on family-living itself that may be a direct or indirect cause of these children's mental health]
Firstly, drag queens are not always gay. Yes, often they are, but your assumption that any male person who dresses in a feminine manner must be homosexual simply uses a patriarchal logic - if you present as the opposite gender you must be gay only serves to reinforce gender norms and homosexual stereotyping.
Secondly, why is it insulting to women for their beauty norms to be parodied (as Rachel in WY mentioned)? Why do you not list women who ridicule beauty norms (or go even further and reject them completely) as mocking women? People who present themselves in a certain way should not represent an entire group of people - basic avoidance of stereotyping here.
I would suggest that you attempt to learn from some of the other people on this message board, because their ability to reason and discuss a topic is excellent.
Oh my! I have to agree with Lucinda. First of all, you have an archaic view of marriage. But when you give no criticism to the LGBT community for wanting marriage, your argument falls apart.
The reactions of people on this kind of topic is often the most interesting to me. I often don't agree with radical feminist positions, but I am sympathetic to them.
I think the fact that we're so deeply immersed in the socializing mechanisms of our culture makes it very difficult to get the critical distance needed to really examine social institutions and practices with a calm and open mind. So this makes me sympathetic to the responses of people who have a really hard time listening carefully to the radical perspective and weighing it in their minds before accepting/rejecting it. I think it feels a bit like a personal attack to them, and this accounts for the intensely emotional reactions. But it's hard to find a way to phrase it in order to avoid this hostile reaction and generate some constructive dialogue. This generally makes me avoid the topic altogether, but I think it's a valuable discussion to have.
I agree that these are difficult topics at times, but in this case I do think that freethinkr's ideals (which they may be perfect for him) are flawed as a prescriptive for society. In this post he states that women may choose to have children for the following reasons:
1. felt in some way pressured to go for it.
2. wanted to because of their internalization of the patriarchal emphasis on motherhood.
3. wanted to experience what motherhood feels like and simply chose to be indifferent to the difficulties that might come along with it.
I think this is simply incorrect. It does not allow for any expressions of women's agency wherein they choose to reproduce for any reason other than pressure, oppression, or indifference to the difficulties. While I have no interest in reproducing myself, I do believe that there are women who reproduce in full knowledge and acceptance of the risks and responsibilities inherent and still make that choice because it is what they want - not as an expression of patriarchal oppression/pressure.
I support freethinkr's choice not to reproduce, but I think it is just as oppressive to advocate that women be pressured to choose *not* to procreate as it is to be pressured *to* procreate.
Right, I think that the way it was stated in the op is a little strong, but I also think that women do internalize the cultural messages they're exposed to since birth. This makes it hard for me to assess the degree of autonomy that's possible, because in so many cases the societal messages have become a part of who you are.
But I agree with you that the best response to this is to work toward a culture that nurtures autonomy and provides an option-rich environment for everyone. And they have to be true, live options that are valued and contribute to flourishing and compassionate individuals. That's not too much to ask, is it? ;)
"That's not too much to ask, is it? ;)"
Oh - I hope not, because that's what I am asking and working for! :)
It does feel like a hopelessly utopian idea at times, though. :D
Indeed, the reactions of casual feminists to radical feminist critiques are often more revealing of ingrained patriarchal values than the reaction of anti-feminists. In other words, the people putting flowered curtains up over the patriarchy are much more interesting than people who are gung-ho phallus worshippers, to me at least, because I don't see how they stop at putting up curtains.
It's amazing how angry some feminists get when you suggest that women, as an oppressed class, might not be making completely free choices -- and then go on to decry the anti-woman messages that are omnipresent in society. From what I can gather, these persons really truly believe that women are both an oppressed class and completely autonomous actors, which is, of course, an utter paradox. See Nivedita Menon's writing for a further explication, especially where it applies to the selective abortion of female fetuses in India.
This is, of course, just me.
Rachel,
I guess its your opinion that I don't have an open mind because I disagreed with the author. I appreciate what the author wrote even though the condescension was a bit offputting. As an anthropology major, I've gotten a cross-cultural perspective of marriage. That was many years ago and I don't claim to be an expert on it, but don't think I'm some ignoramus who can't stand a critical view of the haloed institution of marriage. Truth be known, I'm single and childless, so Freethinkr's article should make me pat myself on the back.
But my problem is that, even though the patriarchy is persistent, women today are more in control of their lives. I guess I take the conservative position whereby I believe that we don't have to completely dismantle certain institutions in order for women to empower themselves. I see women who are educated, have and manage money, and own homes. They may decide to get married for their own benefit. I could go on, but my point is that I just don't see marriage as the oppressive institution it once was. For some women it may still be, but I think it has gotten better thanks to feminism.
You're right. I said that anybody who disagrees with the author does not have an open mind. You nailed it.
OK, seriously, I think that disagreement is good. But I would hope that it's based on calm reasoning rather than on a defensive reaction. I also think that attacking people and portraying their argument in a totally inaccurate way is counterproductive to constructive dialogue. I agree that women have made great advances, but if you look at the amount of unpaid labor that women still perform, generally on top of a full day of paid labor, and at the tiny fraction of women in high-paying jobs, in management, in positions of political power, etc I think we can agree that there's a long way to go. And many of the gains that have been made can be attributed in part to the ideas and work of radical feminists. So I'm not sure why mainstream feminists are so hostile to radical feminism. I generally disagree with radical feminists, but I can appreciate the questions they ask, the issues they raise, and the important role they have.
So what happens with common law unions? With people who live together as a couple? (Marriage rates are actually falling in Western families). Wouldn't you also have to discourage marriages as well as living together?
Before the Marriage Act 1753 in England most people did not get married. But they still lived together and had children.
Now we are steadily going back to a time period where common law unions are viewed in the same light as marriage. So what then?
You talk about families as though mom and pop families were the most common or the dominant form of family. But look at families around a country like the United States. There's unmarried women who have children, extended families where several generations live together, divorced families, same-sex couples with children, and people with out children who live together (unless you consider a childless couple is not a family).
Look at Sweden, Mexico and Egypt and compare their family structures.
My problem is that you seem to view family as a monolithic entity without consideration to social variances and also to changes through time.
"Or even simply that they just wanted to experience what motherhood feels like and simply chose to be indifferent to the difficulties that might come along with it."
Or considered the difficulties and thought there were more pros and cons for them? Indifference means they don't care. But many people do give thought and consideration to the number of children, time when they will have children and care of the children.
I meant indifferent in a 'those difficulties so don't matter for me' kind of way. I thought 'chose to be indifferent' suggested that! My apologies if it doesn't.
And I already said that I'm not advocating any kind of pressure. See my response to your comment in the other thread.
Lis,
I am all for alternate models of cohabitation and child-rearing! But in the imagination of the conservative, family is pretty much a monolith.
Follow this link to a right-wing 'Family Research Council' http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1
They make a very good case of how 'unmarried women who have children', 'divorced families', and 'same-sex couples with children' are not "good" families.
[of course i know that when they mention that crap about the 'psychological well-being of children', they fail to suggest that it may be because of the social premium on family-living itself that may be a direct or indirect cause of these children's mental health]
"But in the imagination of the conservative, family is pretty much a monolith."
That's the thing you see. I live in Canada where I've got a gay married couple living next door, and then you have me as an immigrant woman so my family is not the same as the average Canadian who has lived here since birth, etc. So it's not really monolithic and the conservatives who think it is probably can't remember enough of their own culture and country's history to realize "family" is a fluid concept that changes.
Hey, right now in Mexico City gay people can have recognized civil unions. Even in a staunchly Catholic country there has been change.
If you look at Mexico, just as an example, you realize that "family" (mom, dad, children) still exists as a desirable concept but even then in certain parts of the country you find many communities that are almost all populated by females and older people. Why? The young men are working in large cities or have gone to work in the United States. The families there are still families but male figures are absent most of the year.
The Family Research Council might still consider these examples of proper families since you have a married, Catholic heterosexual couple but if you dig deeper you will see they are not necessarily Leave it to Beaver families.
The Leave it to Beaver family has been one of the least common family units around the world and one of the most recent ones.
So in my view it is not a question of eliminating families (not even nuclear families) but of supporting all kinds of different family organizations which continue to emerge and satisfy different communities. To move from the idea that there is one type of family and accept that there are, and have been for many years, all kinds of families.
For example, in Canada we have paternity leave and in two months I'm going back to work and my husband is going to stay home and take care of our daughter for another six months. Since we can split the leave, have the male take all of it, or the female take all of it, this allows for many more choices and benefits my children. The French are even more generous with their maternity leave, Germany also offers a good amount of time of leave.
I feel sad for women in the United States and other countries who do not enjoy these benefits, but I do not think it is a case of saying "lets stop having babies and not make families," but rather demanding structures that allow for the development of diverse, healthy families.
Btw, I have to say the conservative slant I've seen in some of the United States was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life veering into the land of kitsch.
I think Lucinda at 5:14pm is right on the money! Lucinda, girl, you RAWK!! Gotta love your narrow-eyed suspicion and reluctance to swallow the Modern Feminism Party Line hook, line, and sinker.
You're right, the constant confusion of gay rights and feminism that is a staple on this website has to stop. In fact, it's a staple of much, if not most, of modern feminism, and not just this website, but it has long outlived its usefulness if it ever had any. Which is highly debatable, as women, unlike gay people, are not a minority, but half of the population! Women's rights are not a protection of minorities issue, but they have become confused with one, and I believe this confusion hurts both causes. it definitely hurts feminism, because it narrows down who can be a part of it and benefit from it (a lot of people end up feeling like if you are a heterosexual woman, you are less of a feminist than a gay woman, because you are, as it were, fraternizing with the enemy).
But feminism, or at least the kind of feminism I was raised with, know, and love ;-), is far more inclusive than that. It lacks the bitterly sexist and misanthropic cheerlessness evident in much of the fare on feministing, and other so-called 'modern', so-called 'feminist' productions. It's no wonder most young women wouldn't call themselves feminist even if you paid them to do it, even though they all readily agree on equality between the sexes; this kind of fauxminism is just not relevant to the lives of the vast majority of women, and they, aw hell make that WE, simply can't reconcile the world they observe with the world it describes.
And re 'gay people are never sexist': Of course they are--to just about the same extent as anybody else. And come to think of it, the most breathtakingly sexist individual I have ever had the displeasure of encountering, was, in fact, a (very camp) gay man. He was a bastard and a half, and the only person over the age of sixteen to have called me a slut to my face ;-) And, on the other hand, my favorite teacher at uni, the one I learned the most from in the shortest time, and who was a total joy to work with in conditions that weren't always easy (you really bond with someone when they're coaxing you up a six-meter ladder through your fear of heights)-- he was also a gay dude, and not only he wasn't sexist, but he was all around great to be with and sensitive, and unfailingly professional. The point here being, it's no use penning hagiographies of gay people as some exalted group apart from and better than all the others. If there is to be real equality for gay people, the first thing to do is to abandon the claim to a moral high ground and accept that gay people are a part of the rest of humanity, and capable of just the same range of actions, from the vilest to the most noble, as heterosexual folks. Just as being attracted mainly to people of the same sex does not make you a lesser person, neither by god does it make you a better one - welcome to the gutter, baby! ;-)
"You're right, the constant confusion of gay rights and feminism that is a staple on this website has to stop. In fact, it's a staple of much, if not most, of modern feminism, and not just this website, but it has long outlived its usefulness if it ever had any. Which is highly debatable, as women, unlike gay people, are not a minority, but half of the population!"
Fuck you. If you can't comprehend that WOMEN are ALSO GAY, you're an idiot.
Wait, "women are gay"? I guess you mean "some" women are gay. True, and some women are vegetarians but that doesn't mean that feministing posts about eating veggies everyday.
Is the anti-straight-marriage and anti-child vibe I sometimes feel here connected to the focus on gay and lesbian issues? I sure hope not. That would be very sad.
Gooo Lucinda! rah rah rah!
It's no use mincing words, lol is it
I wasn't aware that the gay community was anti-child and anti-marriage. My impression was exactly the opposite, given how many gay and lesbian couples are raising children, and the fact that so many of them wish to marry.
Vegetarianism IS a feminist topic : Carol Adams, "The Sexual Politics of Meat: Feminist-Vegetariant Critical Theory"
Mona,
How can you say "women's rights aren't about protection of minorities" and "But feminism, or at least the kind of feminism I was raised with, know, and love ;-), is far more inclusive than that" in almost the same breath?
Stopping discussions and inclusion of issues related to sexual orientation (or race, motherhood, childlessness, etc, etc) is the OPPOSITE of inclusive. All of these categories and civil/human rights issues are interrelated and there is no way we could disentangle someone's gender from everything else.
Actually, radical feminism is quite distinct from the "Modern Feminism Party Line." And I'm not sure why the question of whether any gays are sexist is relevant here. How exactly does that factor into the argument?
If you're having a hard time understanding the connections between sexism and racism, homophobia, etc I would recommend reading a basic reader on feminist theory. There are a number of good ones that cover a wide range of feminist theories and discuss the connections between systemic oppression in a number of different areas. Oppression does not occur in isolation. The construction of race, gender, and sexuality in a patriarchal culture are deeply connected and can't really be divorced from each other.
'fuck you.'
Thanks for the good wishes! I think I will, later tonight ;-)
And while SOME women are gay, all women are women. With a women's movement, the accent should be on the commonality of experience between all women, not only SOME women.
Clear as water or clear as mud?
Jaysus.
So including the concerns of lesbians in feminism makes it just about them? How does that follow? Your reasoning is very strange.
Mona,
It's called intersectionality. We are not all alike and we need to discuss our similarities and differences. And no, the discussion of gay rights within feminism should not stop, just as discussions of racisim within feminism should never stop.
I hope you enjoy your night!
I don't agree with this either. I think feminism is a separate issue, even if most feminists are staunchly anti-racial discrimination.
Let's be honest. A lot of men up in arms about racial and ethnic discrimination are the worst offenders when it comes to women's rights. I can think of quite a few among my acquaintance.
Racism and sexism are different issues. Why can't there be a forum devoted to feminist issues exclusively?
Because there is just no such thing as a "feminist issue exclusively." Sexism and the patriarchy impact us differently based on whether we are white, black, Mexican, straight, gay, transgender, etc.
Here's an oldie but goodie, read up, b/c it's better and more informed that what I can say:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/004932.html
I'm not sure I see why the fact that some people who oppose racism are sexist means that feminists ought not to care about racism. How does that make racism and sexism mutually exclusive?