PSA: There Are Many Kinds of Feminism

Iymnok

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:01 pm

marina wrote:

I feel like my secret society still has to work on a name.

Maybe we could go with your suggestion, but pronounce it sistah-mike or systemic. I kind of like systemic. it goes with the theme.

Dk. Still working on it. On the agenda for our next secret meeting. Which will have snacks.

Salad? I'm on a diet.

What you're describing is similar to eastern feminism. But I agree that the women in certain eastern countries have no choice whatsoever in their roles/life/status. Others may look the same, but choose to and embrace it.
(Dh was in debate, he said that eastern feminism was always brought up in the feminism debates.)

crust

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:10 pm

amother wrote:

Based on my experiences, (and I've had a large exposure), people will staunchly defend their restrictions so not to feel the negativity of it or feel oppressed in any way. But when given the chance to drop those very same restrictions, many (not all) will do so, or actually have done so, in a heartbeat. And they only way they can continue placating themselves, is if everyone else around them is forced to do the same. If one truly believes that a skirt should be a certain length, why not just wear it instead of forcing everyone around to follow suit?

I can't answer for everyone, but I'll answer for myself.
Your observations are correct.
If I was allowed to drive, I would've. (Maybe I wouldn't because I wouldn't pass the test. I'm not very athletic. Barely make it when I go go-carting....) But in principle, I dont have an issue with it. I also can't say that I'm placating myself. Everyone who knows me in real life, knows I would drive in a heartbeat. I never say; its just not what I want to do. There's no mitzvah in placating oneself, even regarding halacha. The Torah doesnt want you to say; I dont eat pork because pork isn't good. You may say; Pork is good, but I don't eat it because the Torah doesn't allow it.
For me, the same goes here; I don't drive because my society community children's mosdos doesn't allow it.

Regarding my skirt length and all other things that seem restrictions to you. Again. I can answer only for myself. In a nutshell Except for the chikim min hatorah, Whatever I do, I do because I understand it.
Maybe when I'll have a chance, I'll come back to explain the diversity in the placations used...

amother

Ginger

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:24 pm

Ruchel wrote:

I feel no need to support changes in my community, bringing unpleasantness on myself and other women who like it. Others are welcome to go somewhere else.

Rather self-centered, if I may ( I apologize if I'm offending). You don't want to change anything that's unpleasant for you, but have no issues with the new unpleasantness and changes being brought onto others in well established communities. Many new chumros and restrictions have recently been implemented and you would prefer long-established residents to move elsewhere to avoid any discomfort on your end?

youngishbear

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:35 pm

marina wrote:

This is fine and there definitely are chassidish women who identify as feminists.

But I'm curious whether you draw the line and, if so, how you do it. How far down the spectrum do we take this acceptance? Are we also on board with fundamentalist Muslim women who identify as feminists? They cover their entire bodies, leaving slits for the eyes. They do not leave the house without a chaperone, etc. And sister wives in that community and in some Mormon ones. I am sure at least some will tell you that this is their choice and we need to respect it as a right just like the ones you cite.

And the other end of the spectrum as well. I personally know people who think that prostitution/[filth] is a feminist vocation and that 5ex work is unfairly seen as degrading to women who are not respected for their choices.

Which is all fine. But I am curious as to where you draw the line. Is there a point where a person's insistence that their actions comport with feminism and deserve that sort of respect of their rights, is there a point where you don't agree with that? Don't believe them?

Please know that I am not doubting what you wrote or comparing you to a hooker LOL

I'm just genuinely interested in how people draw these lines.

For me personally, I'm not sure how I draw the line. I guess I try to think if the people in that community have meaningful choice. Which to me would be an analysis of how dire are the consequences for not complying. But that's a flawed analysis because that includes too many people- if you leave your frum community, there's always going to be a fall out, but I still think you have a choice. I dk.

Good questions, actually.

For me, the definition of a feminist is someone who sees inequality along gender lines and has a vision of how it should and could be improved. There are the larger goals for society in general, and then there are the smaller incremental steps that need to be taken inside the individual circles where we find ourselves.

The question is good, but the answer boils down to context. It's important to evaluate what is the starting point, before labeling the end goal.

In my case, I don't want any major religious changes. I want a systemic attitude change towards the concept of conformity (in general, but more) specifically in gender roles. Equal pay. Better employment/career opportunities. An improved approach to family planning. Increasing social standing of women (not "girls") who are not wives and/or mothers. Subtle stuff. Glass ceilings that have already been shattered elsewhere but still form an invisible dome over chassidusville.

I am a working mother, working on a degree. I create change by example. I am thrilled that this is becoming more and more common.

I don't want to wear pants or tefillin, or even drive a car. I have a vision of how my community can improve in its treatment of women, and that makes me a feminist.

crust

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:41 pm

marina wrote:

We're still working on it. Maybe we could go with your suggestion, but pronounce it sistah-mike or systemic. I kind of like systemic. it goes with the theme.

Dk. Still working on it. On the agenda for our next secret meeting. Which will have snacks. That's one important point that we've decided so far.

Do you want to be part of our secret society? Esp since you're amother, that's already showing your dedication to secrecy!

You know what, Marina?
Out of dedication to the cause, I'll out myself.
I thought systeh-mic. Systeh-Mike sounds better, it's like sisters with a Mike shouting to be heard. What do you think?
What type of snacks will you serve? And why only snacks? Aren't we worth a regular sit down meal?

youngishbear

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:43 pm

crust wrote:

Two plates of (stale) cookies, of course.

One day we shall overcome, and celebrate our victory with an annual feast of stale cookies to commemorate the miracles we witnessed.

P.S. As a liberated woman, I vote for store-bought cookies. I do NOT have time for baking.

marina

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:44 pm

youngishbear wrote:

.

In my case, I don't want any major religious changes. I want a systemic attitude change towards the concept of conformity (in general, but more) specifically in gender roles. Equal pay. Better employment/career opportunities. An improved approach to family planning. Increasing social standing of women (not "girls") who are not wives and/or mothers. Subtle stuff. Glass ceilings that have already been shattered elsewhere but still form an invisible dome over chassidusville.

I am a working mother, working on a degree. I create change by example. I am thrilled that this is becoming more and more common.

I don't want to wear pants or tefillin, or even drive a car. I have a vision of how my community can improve in its treatment of women, and that makes me a feminist.

what happens, though, when there's a domino effect? Isn't that what's holding the community back?

Improved approach to family planning and better career opportunities can easily lead to women driving to work /wanting to drive to work. I dk that you can shatter long-held attitudes without risking the actual major religious changes that you don't want.

youngishbear

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:47 pm

marina wrote:

Sh!!!

Do you realize that it's this attitude that's kept us from making progress in our own small way?

The slippery slope argument is the biggest hurdle we chassidish feminists face. They're afraid to give us a finger because then we will want a hand. We need to frame it as elevating women, not taking down the patriarchy, (which is our true aim. Twisted Evil

)

Seriously speaking though, I don't agree that one necessarily leads to the other. I work and don't see the need for a car.

Ruchel

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 12:50 pm

amother wrote:

I don't care for an anonymous apology.
I have issues with changes, including new chumros. But you're unable to be dan lekaf echus. Oh, oops, I apologize if I'm offending.

edited to say: don't bother trying to make a fight. I'm out.

PinkFridge

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 1:03 pm

youngishbear wrote:

I was going to say, I know I'll be invited because I'll bring cookies. (I bake, decently.) And Mishpacha didn't come to mind but the cookies Cathy's mother served at a consciousness-raising meeting for her friends. (All the mothers fought over the broken cookies.)

Fox

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 1:13 pm

If you want to call anyone who believes in equal legal rights and equal opportunity a feminist, then you might as well call anyone who owns a cell phone a technophile.

In other words, when a particular philosophy is almost universally accepted, we usually stop singling out individuals as members of the group promoting it. There is a Flat Earth Society, but how many of us go around saying, "I'm a spherical Earth-ist!"

This is the problem feminism is facing in the U.S. and most Western countries. Polls commissioned by YouGov and HuffPo indicate that 86 percent of Americans support "equality of the sexes." That means that 14 percent of Americans don't support legal/opportunity equality, a percentage nearly equal to the number of Americans (12 percent) who believe Elvis is still alive.

At the same time, less than 1/4 of women surveyed describe themselves as "feminists" and only 16 percent of men do.

So what gives? If virtually everyone agrees with the aims of feminism, why are so few people willing to be associated with it. And surely there are ways in which feminism could and should work to ensure that the good intentions of the 86 percent are actually carried out.

But you've got pro-life feminists banned from the women's marches. You've got Zionist lesbian feminists ejected from LGBT marches. You've got Linda Sarsour announcing that you can't be a Zionist and a feminist. You've got Jessica Valenti promoting Slutwalks.

The public faces of feminism are significantly out-of-touch with the values and morals of huge swaths of people. So unfortunately, "many kinds of feminism" really means "something to offend everyone."

youngishbear

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 1:34 pm

Fox wrote:

The slut walk is an attempt to take back the word. (No comment on the subject.)

Let's take back the word feminist!!

I stand by my own definition.

ETA: I want to point out that my definition is "someone who sees inequality and has a vision to correct it". That does not include some of the revisionists out there (ahem) who see the job of feminists as completed and no longer necessary, using extreme examples to disqualify the entire movement. Wink

Fox

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 1:57 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Let's take back the word feminist!!

I stand by my own definition.

ETA: I want to point out that my definition is "someone who sees inequality and has a vision to correct it".

This is the part that I honestly don't understand.

You have a definition of feminism that you've come up with, and Linda Sarsour has a definition of feminism that she's come up with. Which one are we supposed to be taking back? Are we throwing out 30 years worth of feminist scholarship because most of it doesn't fit with your definition?

Heather Wilhelm, a columnist who's bounced around a number of publications, said, "I didn't leave feminism, it left me." That's certainly how I feel, and as such, it's hard to get excited about taking back a word that represents a movement that essentially told the shadchan, "No thanks" when it came to me.

youngishbear

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 2:23 pm

Fox, I don't understand your question.

Words have definitions and connotations. Over time they evolve. I want to reclaim the word and restore it to its original non militant connotation, the one you pointed out is so universally accepted that no one would even voice opposition to it (except in chassidusville, maybe.)

I don't have the power to do that single-handedly, but neither am I the one with the ability to coin a new word a to fit a specific slightly out of fashion connotation for a word that already exists. Retro-feminism? Classic? Basic? First wave? Traditional?

We can consider the women's movement as pushing society along a series of steps from horrible inequality, to improved attitudes, to widening opportunities, and then all the way to the opposite end where some of the leaders fall of the deep end, so to speak.

Progress has not been even, though. I'm still worrying about step 3 or 4 out of the 20 I want to achieve right where I stand, out of the 864 "the movement" has identified for the world at large.

The subject of intersectionality is also complicated, because there's no denying that women from minority groups deal with a double whammy of prejudice. But why in the world does this translate into all of womankind taking on the cause of the Palestinians?? So I agree with you there. It's why I don't study feminist tracts for talking points. I shrug my shoulders on those trendy questions and focus on my corner of the world. There's plenty of work right there. Maybe when I'm done I'll have time to study whatever wave of feminism will be the latest one at that time.
.

marina

Wed, Jul 12 2017, 8:32 pm

Fox wrote:

Can't we say this about any movement, any religion even?

You have a definition of Judaism that you've come up with and the Reconstructionists have a definitions of Judaism they've come up with...