This is for all you anti-feminists.

zohar

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 5:47 pm

Tablepoetry wrote:

I don't know about her, but I personally am rather bewildered when people embrace basic feminist precepts but are vehemently disgusted by the word 'feminist'. The teachers and educators and rabbis at my dds' school utter the word like it's a curse word, half spitting it.

I think this is for two reasons. When they are taking about feminists, they are taking about the political movement and the movement in our colleges and universities which is very extreme. This is why fewer and fewer women identify as feminists today. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....html.
It's disingenuous to claim that the feminist movement today is even similar to the women sufferagates previous generations and it's about equality between the sexes.
Also, some of these teacher's may remember when feminists rejected femininity and looked down on women who made different choices and embraced more traditional gender roles, or were stay at home moms and sneered at traditional family values etc. Today's feminist might tread more lightly on the surface with these issues, but it seems like they didn't actually change all that much.

Marina, your addressing anti feminists. What do you think these anti feminists believe? That women shouldn't be paid the same? Should not be allowed to vote? Should be reduced to zexual etc.? All of us "anti feminists" are actually against those things and everything addressed in the video. We don't see any solution coming from today's feminist movement and see them ignoring the real problems, spreading man hatred and bring counter productive.

Tablepoetry

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 6:11 pm

zohar wrote:

Then these people (like my kids' teachers) who deride and mock feminism should clarify exactly what they are mocking. It is ridiculous to encourage girls to study, to develop a good career, to vote, to speak publicly, etc, etc, and then mock feminism. Without feminism these girls would likely be learning only home ec and typing.
But in truth I see a lot of this vehemence against feminism as the cry of the loser. For example, lately there has been an outcry in Israel against the feminists that 'are convincing' orthodox girls to enlist. Just last week a prominent rabbi warned that these girls would never find anyone willing to marry them. But the numbers show that actually the more torani DL girls are enlisting in increasing numbers, thinking on their own, regardless of what some of the leaders of the camp say.
And FTR, there is no major feminist group brainwashing these girls to enlist. Not one such group was allowed to enter my dds' school (while a lot of anti-army brainwashing certainly went on). These girls are just a product of their time.

Fox

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 6:38 pm

zohar wrote:

Marina, your addressing anti feminists. What do you think these anti feminists believe? That women shouldn't be paid the same? Should not be allowed to vote? Should be reduced to zexual etc.? All of us "anti feminists" are actually against those things and everything addressed in the video. We don't see any solution coming from today's feminist movement and see them ignoring the real problems, spreading man hatred and bring counter productive.

Perfectly said!

Tablepoetry wrote:

This is the problem with everyone defining "feminism" for herself; there's no guarantee that everyone is talking about the same thing.

The last sentence, however, is what saddens me about feminism's failures.

Feminism was supposed to elevate women and men. It was supposed to enable all people to embrace facets of themselves that fell outside traditional gender roles. It was supposed to honor different talents and choices.

Instead, we talk about "only" home ec and typing -- though we never refer to "only" calculus and chemistry. The traditionally masculine subjects are treated as rigorous and worthwhile; the traditionally feminine subjects are portrayed as simple or intellectually unstimulating.

Feminism may have won the battle in making sure that girls could take chemistry and calculus while boys could enroll in home ec and typing. But they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when they conceded that calculus is more inherently important to society than home ec.

Tablepoetry

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 6:50 pm

Fox, I knew you would focus on the only home ec part, and I debated about including it.
However, I think it's important on a few levels. First, I meant it literally, girls would only learn that before feminism, for better or worse.
Second, I note you include typing as something traditionally female that maybe we should embrace. Although typing was one of the more useful high school courses I took, I see nothing inherently female or feminine about it. At all. The fact women were often typists in a certain generation has nothing to do with how feminine the job is.
As for home ec. I think it's important. I think it's undervalued. Its time in the limelight will return (and it has enjoyed popularity on and off since the days of Martha Stewart). But I am eternally grateful my dds are not limited to learning home ec, and that feminism and history have allowed them to forge careers that can make them finacially independant in the future.

Tablepoetry

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 7:10 pm

Fox wrote:

Instead, we talk about "only" home ec and typing -- though we never refer to "only" calculus and chemistry. The traditionally masculine subjects are treated as rigorous and worthwhile; the traditionally feminine subjects are portrayed as simple or intellectually unstimulating.

Feminism may have won the battle in making sure that girls could take chemistry and calculus while boys could enroll in home ec and typing. But they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when they conceded that calculus is more inherently important to society than home ec.

I dont know many people that think that calculus is more important to society than home ec.
I do know many people, myself included, who think calculus is more important to their own dd than home ec.
Calculus and the like can be the key to a girl finding a good job. Financial stability is a big part of adult freedom and independence. Today many people dont want their dd to have to wait for a man to feed and clothe her, or to be utterly helpless if such a man leaves her.
Home ec, OTOH, is all about managing a home. As someone who took home ec back in the day, I can safely say it was not about encouraging women to become business leaders of the domestic world like Martha S, but just to help us be better wives/mothers. We learned how to set a table, how to cook some basic stuff, how to sew. Useful, yes, but nowhere near as useful as completing courses necessary for advanced careers.

I have friends who cant sew a button but they seem to fare just fine in today's world.

behappy2

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 8:09 pm

marina wrote:

There are more jerks everywhere when society finds it acceptable, which is when feminism is not a value.

Feminism at its core is respecting women and their bodies and their choices. And not just generally like "hey, good for me, I'm not a rapist, I get three gold stars," but more specifically, like:

* if I'm a male boss and my employee is a nursing mom, I will arrange for a private and comfortable space for her.

* If my friends joke about girls who are sluts or prudes, I tell them off

* If my community doesn't allow women to vote in community elections, I say something.

* If my wife wants to drive a car or stop shaving her head, I respect her decision even if causes me problems with the community.

* If I'm a frum boss, I don't pay my male workers with a family more than single girls for the same job.

See? Not so simple.

I know a few men who want their wives to drive but their wives dont want to. This is in a community where woman don't drive.

mommy3b2c

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 9:45 pm

Tablepoetry wrote:

There. You just said it. You don't think raising children and managing a household is as important as working.

Fox

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 11:17 pm

Tablepoetry wrote:

But I am eternally grateful my dds are not limited to learning home ec, and that feminism and history have allowed them to forge careers that can make them finacially independant in the future.

You've shifted the topic ever so slightly. No one has suggested that girls be limited to learning certain subjects; no one has suggested that women be prevented from supporting themselves or being financially independent.

Of course women need to be able to support themselves, but if your only criterion for determining the importance of a particular skill, talent, or characteristic is whether it is financially profitable, you're headed down a very problematic road.

Tablepoetry wrote:

have friends who cant sew a button but they seem to fare just fine in today's world.

What does it mean to "fare just fine"? They can earn livings without sewing on buttons? They are able to successfully outsource various domestic problems? They are respected despite the fact that they don't sew on buttons?

Sorry, but I have trouble imagine a fulfilling lifestyle where no one in the family is able to sew? Sure, you can buy Purim costumes. You can send repairs and alterations to a seamstress. You can buy a baby gift rather than making one.

But that means that your kids are limited to the Purim costumes available for purchase. That means that you are dependent on your local seamstress and her availability. That means that your gift is mass-produced in China rather than reflecting something unique that you created. That's kind of sad and depressing.

All of us have to take various shortcuts because of time or talent (or lack thereof), but it's madness to pretend that those shortcuts are actually better than the alternatives. It's like saying you can live on fast food. Well, yeah, but that's hardly a recommendation for the practice.

mommy3b2c

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 11:39 pm

sequoia wrote:

It's all very well when you have a living, present husband who makes good money.

But anyone can end up in a situation where they are the sole breadwinner.

Again, this is not about ideology. This is about reality.

Ftr, I'd LOVE to be a stay-at-home-mom.

So what should be happening is that girls should be given the tools to make a living and be a mom/housewife. They should then be given the choice and be told they are equally awesome. That is not the reality though. Girls are given the message that in order to prove they are awesome, they need to have a career.

And I hope you get to be a sahm one day.

youngishbear

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 11:56 pm

mommy3b2c wrote:

Agreed. But girls and woman are being given the message that staying home and being a mom and a housewife is somehow less than a career. It's not.

FYI my chassidish school waxed poetic about a Yiddishe mama and her tafkid. The message was all on the importance of childrearing, yet I personally love to work and I'm grateful that today I can do so without needing to apologize for it. I'm glad the local seamstress can hem my kids' clothes, and that stores sell ready costumes.

Mostly I am glad my value as a person does not hinge on how much of a balabuste I am, as it did for women once upon a time. I would be a total failure.

Calculus? Meh. I could live without it. But don't you dare try to make me feel less of a woman just because I do not live up to Stepfordian standards.

ETA: I don't mean YOU, I mean anyone out there in the world...

Last edited by youngishbear on Mon, Mar 13 2017, 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

cbsp

Mon, Mar 13 2017, 11:57 pm

Fox wrote:

This is an excellent example of where I believe feminism fails.

I happen to have very conflicted thoughts on the practice of not including pictures of women in Jewish magazines. I understand the underlying concept, but I also believe it has many negative unintended consequences.

However, I don't think it can be viewed exclusively in Marxist terms: another example of the exploiter and the oppressed.

In fact, I find that viewing the issue in dialectical terms is not only misleading, it leaves out a lot from all perspectives. For example, how do we relate the concept of "male gaze" to pictures? How do challenge our ideas of s-xual desirability? Can privacy exist without denying agency?

Good luck thinking out loud about any of these questions on Imamother or elsewhere.

Self-defined feminists have decided that magazines without pictures of women are on one side of the "struggle" and the betterment of women is on the other. Try saying that maybe, just maybe, the picture issue requires more thought than a quick label of "sexist." You'll be laughed at and get plenty of rolling-eye emoticons. After all, the application of Marxist theory to frum magazines doesn't allow for messy motivations or conflicted history.

Many people believe that women should not be allowed to decide for themselves what is good, bad, right, or wrong. When these people are men, they are sexists. When these people are women, they are feminists.

Interesting.
Have you heard about Kazoo?
http://www.vogue.com/article/k.....rview

It's a magazine geared towards 5-10yo girls with the idea that there will be very few pictures of girls featured. The editor explains why in the above link.

marina

Tue, Mar 14 2017, 12:11 am

Fox wrote:

Let's review the chronology of the discussion:

1. You posted a video advocating for equity feminism plus treating women nicely.

2. Several people, including me, pointed out that contemporary feminism includes key elements that we find problematic -- namely, deconstructionism and intersectionality. I brought evidence of this in the form of Sommers's and Paglia's critique. I also mentioned a Twitter feed where those interested could see the theories and scholarship that underpin contemporary feminism.

3. You and Magenta Amother argue that I am using extreme elements to represent mainstream feminism -- despite my evidence to the contrary.

I can find no serious writers, scholars, or speakers who don't consider deconstructionism and intersectionality to be part and parcel of authentic feminism today. Claiming that these are not integral elements of contemporary feminism seems to me to be wishful thinking: what you ideally would like feminism to represent rather than what it really is.

The chronology of every post ever mentioning feminism is that you show up and explain it all to us that what we are talking about is NOT FEMINISM, duh. Real feminism is angry women male bashing and painting themselves as victims.

Every. Single. Time.

So this thread, to answer Ora, is for people who actually listen to Fox and wonder whether feminism is so narrowly defined.

It is not. That's why I brought for you a lovely video where these kids explain what feminism means to them.

And then you're all like: duh, feminism means being a mentch.

and the only reason you even have that response is... that's right. The only reason you even associate treating women respectfully with being a good human being is BECAUSE OF FEMINISM. A hundred years ago being a good person had nothing to do with treating women respectfully because women were like children, you could treat them as you wished, depending on how they behaved for you. But now, thanks to feminism you read that sentence and shudder and cannot even imagine that world.

And as for who gets to define feminism? Me. I do. And the rest of us feminists we get to define it too. Not just whatever kooks are the scholars of the day. Will there be various definitions? Sure. So what? This video is about mine.

Last edited by marina on Tue, Mar 14 2017, 1:47 am; edited 2 times in total

Tablepoetry

Tue, Mar 14 2017, 1:19 am

mommy3b2c wrote:

There. You just said it. You don't think raising children and managing a household is as important as working.

First of all, I never said that. Sequoia put it very well. I want my dds to be able to survive out there. Working, or the ability to work, is necessary for that. Sewing is not necessary for survival in today's world (although of course once it was).
Second, I never once said one word about raising children. I think that is the most important job in the world. But again, financial stability is a big part of raising children.
Finally, in todays world I believe balabusta skills are the the fine icing on the cake. Learning how to support yourself is the bread and butter.

Tablepoetry

Tue, Mar 14 2017, 1:46 am

mommy3b2c wrote:

I don't support giving girls (or boys) the message that in order to be awesome they need a career.
I do think the message should be that in order to be an independent adult, you need to hone proper skills to support yourself (ie develop a career).
I do think school should devote some time preparing men and women to be parents and manage homes. But time is limited, and I wouldnt want learning how to sew to replace university required courses.

Tablepoetry

Tue, Mar 14 2017, 2:08 am

Fox wrote:

You find it hard to imagine a fulfilling family life where no one is able to sew? Oh my.
Meet me, exhibit one. I can sew buttons back on, but that's where my sewing skills pretty much end (and I actually took sewing back in the day....not all women take to this 'feminine' skill).
Most of my friends are similar. Those who can sew barely use it unless they happen to like it.
I think we lead pretty fulfilling family lives.
I could turn the same question to you. How do you lead a fulfilling lifestyle if you purchase all your clothes at the mall? Why don't you sew all your family's clothes like once was done?
Today most people outsource the making of clothes and I don't see how outsourcing the mending is any different.
As for purim costumes, many abound with creativity but maybe one mom in an entire school is actually sewing them. Kids either pull together something on their own or buy and add to it. Yes, maybe it would be more special if mom invested two weeks sewing it, but as I said, that's icing on the cake. I want my dd to be able to support herself as a priority, and to learn to sew costumes only if that's something she enjoys. (I certainly would dislike a world where women felt pressure to sew costumes regardless of whether they like it or not.)

I dont think you can compare not sewing to living on fast food at all. Living on fast food kills your health. Me sending the seamstress my mending doesnt kill anyone. You can compare it to me serving my family simple, tasty, healthy food, rather than gourmet meals set on fine china.

I strongly believe that we each make our house a home in different ways. The fact one woman sews costumes doesnt make her home cozier or happier than the woman who loves home decoration or the woman who loves gardening or even the woman who wants to spend all her free time taking nature walks with her kids.

Last edited by Tablepoetry on Tue, Mar 14 2017, 2:15 am; edited 1 time in total