Well, I'm in the next generation of feminists.

[Neoma]

What needs to be done? How do we do it, and why isn't this a bigger topic? Is it a lack of a new voice?

We're still used as decoration, we live in a rape culture, women still have unequal wages, and apparently we're fighting for our reproductive rights again. (Or have we always been?) And we've come a long way but we're slipping back somehow. That's the message I've gotten so far.

What about men? Where are they being discriminated at? Child custody? Cases where they have been raped? Job discrimination for originally "feminine" occupations?

How much more is there to all this? Where are our new heroes and leaders in this? More to the point: why haven't I heard about the main group organizers and leaders of the 60s-70s women's movement? Or 80s...or 90s. (Grrl bands?) Civil rights activists had their Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Why on earth haven't I heard of Ella Baker in the mainstream of our culture? Hell, I think that's the only name I know. Susan B. Anthony? That was over a century ago.

The male default is so ingrained in our culture, that I never even considered having a female idols when I was growing up. WHY?

It's like women idols are hidden in tiny little holes and you have to dig them up, while men are blaring in your face with very positive, enlightening messages that attracts and persuades you that it's more natural to be a man with these intelligent thoughts.

I only planned to ask the first two questions...whoops.

[seabeyond]

1. what do you see, being in that generation?

And welcome, if you haven't used this forum.

[Neoma]

2. Overused technology.

People getting ansty about being in face-to-face conversations. It seems like people only talk about important issues online, so that they're not punched.

I see women of power in the media, but only in the Kill Bill sense. The most obvious women in power growing up were Hillary Clinton and Margret Thatcher. Too many people talked about how they didn't like them, and who would know any better? Queens from medieval times were the only ones really portrayed as intellectuals. Queen Elizabeth is actually the only one that comes to mind. Marie Antionette is protrayed as a joke. Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, and Shirley Temple is a bit old fashioned.

I think the only strong females I felt comfortable with was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Captain Janeway and Dana Scully in the X-files. Female rolls in cartoons weren't all that great. This is the generation that had to tolerate the Power Puff Girls and Hello Kitty... Lisa Simpson was cool though. I could go on and on...

In all respects, you get mixed messages. A woman without contributing to the family income is looked down upon. If you get a job, they ask when or if you'll have kids...

Damn, I forgot to mention the importance of the character Hermione Granger.

[laconicsax]

3. I hate to say it...

I recently re-watched all of Voyager, and came to an inescapable conclusion:

Captain Janeway was the worst captain in Star Trek and some of it had to do with her being written as "the lady captain."

[Neoma]

4. I viewed her as a overly tired coffee drinker that managed to pull it all together.

Funny enough, I heard sexist comments by my uncle when we were watching it on TV. Had to defend her, I wouldn't put up with that bullcrap.

[laconicsax]

5. That's an accurate view, too.

I was mostly disappointed with the character--the writers talked about how they tried to always stress the fact that Janeway was a woman ("sensitive," "caring," etc.) who managed to be the captain in spite of it.

Imagine how much better the series would have been if she'd started as the first officer who had to compete against Chakotay for command when the captain was killed, proved herself to be the superior officer, and took command. What we have instead is the "lady captain" who manages to balance being a woman with being a captain and still takes the time to play domestic slave on the holodeck. :double puke:

[seabeyond]

8. i ran a small business. i learned from my father. we grew up in that atmosphere.

my behavior is assigned to men. when i am seen as a woman it is too aggressive. where as a man, it is being competent. doing his job. i find the same in posting on this board. because i dont tippy toe around, i find people assigning emotions that are not there. that they would never do to a man. i have found it interesting.

another revelation, over the last few days, is it seems to me (just an observation and no more) the men that truly feel a woman should sit down and shut up have the hardest time they way i address them. yet men, who i may well be disagreeing with, who think of me equally as a person, can disagree in conversation and not be offended by my way of speaking. even in disagreeing, respect me as a person. enjoy me as a person.

it has been interesting.

[seabeyond]

6. neoma, i couldnt agree with you more.

i have two teen boys and have seen so much in the last decade. my advantage is i was raised in an environment as a person, not a gender. i had the same expectations as my brothers. actually higher ones because of my characteristics. i was in a sport for almost a couple decades that had both genders participating side by side.

i walked into a time where i saw men and women working together, not battling. men actually on womens side. and i watched the time men started grouping to repress women again. not thru the bible patriarchy, but thru ownership of her sexuality.

i often say, and will say again, it is a boiling vat of experiment on our children.

my boys dont participate in a lot of it. when they step out of the house, they will have the freedom to, but they will also be older, with an older brain, able to put it in its proper place, i hope.

the advantage that the younger generation has over the 20 somethings, is they have been able to watch the effects of this society and are making better choices. we are catching up to what is happening.

funny you bring up powergirls. i was one of the few parents that did not allow my kids to watch it. i would tell their very young bodies that though it was empowerment of women, fighting for justice, the faces were always angry. even happy, they appear angry. we dont do those shows. conditioning matters.

all while my kids were and are growing up, we discuss this stuff. it is our entertainment. not television. i dont know the answer. it feels like on one hand, young women think the battle is won. on the other, i agree with you. seems like we are going backward and people are having so much fun playing in the mess, or taking care of self (i totally understand both positions), that we are allowing and feeding and rippling out our way to suppression.

[Neoma]

11. I think there's a lot of confusion also.

We're number 1! We're the most overstmulated generation to date. iPhones, TV, Internet, books, school, and all that goes with it. It's amazing if any of us find the time to have hobbies.

I'm not sure if the mess is exactly acknowledged by everyone. If you don't explain suffragette history (They honestly don't go into great detail on that.) or heck, if you choose to ignore history, then you're left thinking that everything around you is simply just the way they are and that you have to conform to the mold or you're not really a part of this mold called our society. That's where you bump into the, "nothing needs to be fixed." attitude I think.

But the message to guys is, "women have rights, but we have the power of being the stronger ones naturally." In a sense. Women still get the, "I have to be decoration." message. But there's been a slight change because not everyone is buying into it due to the empowerment we get by being able to be whatever we want... If you're not too poor for college.

Eh, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, I don't know.

[seabeyond]

12. i dont think you are

blowing smoke out of your ass. and i think it is important you look around.

even raised in the environment i was in, 60's and 70's, within, i believed men were superior to women in thinking and ability. women needed to be manipulative to get the man t do what she wanted. as a teenager, i remember coming to the realization that i truly grew up believing this garbage. in awareness is when you are able to shed these conditioning's. if never thought of, they are just part of perception.

i told my sons not long ago, raised as i was, thinking what i did. they see a totally different woman than that. it was healthy for them to understand how powerfully society conditions.

[Neoma]

14. I met a woman in the gym once.

I was talking to her, admiring her dedication to her health. I asked, "So do you lift weights a lot?" She said, "No, I was gaining too many bulky muscles, so I cut back."

[iverglas]

9. do you know ...

I think the only strong females I felt comfortable with was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Captain Janeway and Dana Scully in the X-files.

A few years ago I had a brief relationship with a man who was also an old Star Trek fan -- an old fan, that is, not just a fan of old Star Trek.

He firmly and very seriously took the position that Capt. Janeway was just wrong -- that a woman could not be the lead starship captain in Star Trek / Star Fleet. This was a reasonably politically aware man, but of my generation. I wonder whether younger viewers (of both sexes) found the idea just as clanging and unacceptable.

Yes, interesting that your strong female models are all fictional.

Martin Luther King Jr. admired Margaret Sanger -- and obviously knew that all the tales told about her alleged racism etc. were merely right-wing, misogynist efforts to discredit her and thus to undermine women's equality-seeking efforts.

I think that's part of the problem you have experienced. Hostility to women and opposition to women's equality are still socially acceptable to the point that it is possible to dismiss women who might otherwise be considered to be heroic, simply because no one is perfect. Individual women's imperfections -- real or perceived, or just blatant lies -- are made the focus of concerted efforts to discredit them.

Was Margaret Sanger, with her steadfast, life-long commitment to the right of women to control our reproductive destiny and her anti-patriarchal "free love", more of a threat to the status quo and those whose interests it serves than even MLK Jr and his socialism?

I wonder whether that isn't at least part of the reason why the news of women and their lives and work and goals aren't suppressed.

[Neoma]

15. Sigh.

Yes, interesting that your strong female models are all fictional.

Pathetic isn't it? My non-fictional heroes were Isaac Asimov and Benjamin Franklin. Isaac Asimov because he wrote a book every two weeks, Bejamin Franklin because I think I heard he read a book a day...

[iverglas]

16. on King and Sanger

Just thought you might find this interesting.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm

Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband's acceptance speech on his behalf.

Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared, "I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger. Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight."

Planned Parenthood is proud to reprint Dr. King's acceptance speech.


Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern

by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.

... There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted. ...

... For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.

For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.


About two weeks after the award ceremony, Dr. King wrote the following letter to Cass Canfield, chairman of the Executive Committee of the PPFA — World Population Emergency Campaign:

Dear Mr. Canfield:

Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.

Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion.

I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.

Sincerely yours,

Martin Luther King Jr.

You don't hear about that, do you?

And damn. There's some intersectionality talk for us.

[ismnotwasm]

28. Sure don't

In fact, on a recent car ride I listened to about 30 seconds of an rw idiot saying "I think MLK would have been pro-life had he lived" What the fuck ever. Revisionist history at it's finest, used by talk radio and is no doubt on some blog stated as fact.

Now, I believe he would have deplored the 'need' for abortion, he was after all, a political figure. But I certainly don't think he would have promoted forced pregnancies.

Oh gee whadaya know, a quick google shows my instincts were right. Heres the first link that came up
http://jezebel.com/5876611/no-fox-news-martin-luther-king-jr-wasnt-anti+abortion

[iverglas]

29. good one!

He was actually a commie too, of course.

One of your (collective) other icons has a loony right-wing offspring who tries to lay claim to their legacy too, don't they? Or maybe it's this Alveda King niece I'm thinking of.

[seabeyond]

35. it is good to see you. nt

[Feldspar]

7. Here's a link

to a comprehensive list of feminists (present and past) and their writings.

You may find the rest of the space really interesting too Enjoy!

http://radicalhub.com/resource/

[Sera_Bellum]

18. Thanks for the link!

I have maneuvered around there a few times. The writings are fascinating and spot on!

Don't dare enter if you are a man-splainer or not a true feminist though.

[redqueen]

10. My take...

what needs to be done is we need to work on changing the fact that women are so underrepresented politically. We need to work on changing the fact that women are so frequently conditioned to self-objectify, which leads to eating disorders, depression, etc. We need to change the culture which says that male is the default and female is an exception/other.

How do we do it? By no longer pretending that these things are just unchangeable. By calling it out when we see it instead of rolling our eyes or just shrugging it off as if it doesn't matter. Also by supporting things that project the positive messages that are so desperately in need of reinforcement, and no longer supporting things that work counter to that goal.

I think it's not a bigger topic because up to now, feminism has been focused on more easily identifiable problems (domestic violence, unequal pay, etc.) that these more insidious things have been interpreted by most people to be acceptable. Most people don't even see that sexism is still an issue.

As for men, I know that job discrimination is a serious issue. Child custody as well, possibly. I have seen that issue debated thoroughly and it doesn't seem as cut and dry as the demonization they face for daring to posses any traditionally feminine characteristics whatsoever. Domestic violence and rape are also issues where there needs to be more outreach to encourage victims to come forward. The idea that asking for help is weak (and therefore feminine) prevents many men from speaking about it at all let alone going to authorities or seeking help from advocacy groups. I think this is starting to change though so that's good.

As for heroes, powerful women aren't so favored by the media, so you have to dig for those on your own.

Just my (probably a lot more than) 2 cents.

[Neoma]

13. It reminds me of videogames for some reason.

I remember being on a MMORPG and the guys chose to be female characters just to look at her digitalized ass.

"Powerful" people shouldn't be created on TV anyways. The Internet is more free. Honestly, this generation is probably more on the internet than watching TV...

[redqueen]

17. Well I meant celebrated more than created...

plenty of documentaries about powerful and influential men, less so for women. But men are just telling their own stories. They own most of the production companies, and there are far more male than female directors.

It's an uphill battle, but you're exactly right that the internet provides us with a tool to bypass all that. And that is definitely encouraging.

[Neoma]

19. Generally, you get into directing by writing.

But how much would the male influence our message if we get it out there?

The observation I took with me while growing up, is that there's a lot of ugly men and pretty women on TV. And the ugly men are only there because they got the goddamn personality. The charisma.

Not many ugly women, and they sure aren't allowed to have much charisma. which I've seen Whoopi Goldberg proclaimed as the ugly woman in her own E! Biography! But that's just insulting, because her looks are perfectly fine.

[redqueen]

20. Depends on how many men are involved in production,

and how much influence they exert.

As for appearance, you've given yet more examples of the way women are marginalized unless they fit the 'a woman's power is in her looks' message.

[seabeyond]

21. there is also the argument about teen males being the ticket buyers which has been proven false

but hollywood refuses to accept, ergo, create movies for that age.

i dont have an article on it. but remember reading it.

[redqueen]

22. Studies have shown that male audience members generally cannot identify with female lead characters.

While female audience members generally can identify with male lead characters.

I don't think it's any mystery why, really. Male is the default. Most stories are about men as the lead character. When women are the lead character, the focus is usually on her relationship to some male character. This is the case in books and movies.

We're socialized to be the 'other', and to think of male as the 'default'.

As for ticket sales, I'm sure you're right. Women buy tickets and we're over half the population. Once you do away with that excuse, the only reason left that I can think of is that guys are made uncomfortable when women are the focus (a men with mostly male characters is a movie, a movie with mostly female characters is a 'chick flick'). They need to get over it.

[Neoma]

23. Isn't it a little odd that they generally put women in roles

That relate to being in a relationship?

[seabeyond]

24. for a chick flick. and servicing a male for a manly mans movie or

being raped and rescued.

son and i were having a conversation about the consistencies in eastwood movies.

[redqueen]

25. Not really...

that's women's role, as society views it. Our relation to men defines us, because we are the 'other', the exception, not the default.

It's this view that needs to change in order to socialize males to be able to identify with female lead characters.

[iverglas]

26. odd to the thinking person ;)

It doesn't even take any thought for me, these days.

I would have left off watching Homeland half-way through or earlier, except the co-vivant liked it and I didn't actually hate it. The female lead character was way past non credible. And the other (scarce) female characters were wives. Oh, and daughter. One of the wives, the male lead's, got a fair amount of screen time, but she was wife, nothing more. And her storyline revolved not around her job (she didn't have one as far as I could tell, despite having been a lone parent for some years) or anything actually personal to her; it revolved around sex: her affair with someone else. The entire story was densely populated by male people, absolutely everyone the female lead interacted with.

I just look at the first episode of a show now, and if that's the case, it's almost always no second episode -- unless the story is about something specific to men, and there's nothing to say that can't be worthwhile: The Green Mile, for instance, was about an all-male environment, and it had things to say. But The Sopranos? No, ta very much. Not for five minutes. Men with female appendages, and nasty men at that. Horrible thing.

Unfortunately, female-lead television shows are often in the B list. Crossing Jordan, Bones ... not the good material for them. And look at something like The Closer -- strong female lead, surrounded by men. If we can believe she became chief of police or whatever, couldn't we believe a couple of her detectives were women?

I didn't watch the original Law and Order for the first 4 or 5 years it was on air. I watched one episode and saw three male cops, three male lawyers, and a hooker, and I didn't come back next week. They even had a black lawyer; but no women anywhere in a cast of six main characters. I thought men were supposed to be good at arithmetic -- there are probably a couple of dozen ways they could have managed to squeeze even one woman into that set, but for some reason it just didn't occur to them. Then, a season or two after the beginning? -- came the female lawyer. And then the show went whole hog wild -- the woman medical examiner, the woman firearms expert, the woman psychiatrist, the wheelchair-using tech guy, the gay Asian psychiatrist FBI agent ... ! All secondary characters shoehorned into the cast, but I'll give 'em credit. And eventually the black woman lieutenant. I've seen more than one series where the same thing has happened. But what is it that makes these guys unable to get it on the first go??

What can we do about it? Pine for the days of Mary Tyler Moore and Murphy Brown and hell, Roseanne, I guess.

Second-wave feminist teevee.

[Neoma]

27. Just thought of something.

Every "the one" hero Jesus movie that saves the world are all males.

Matrix
Harry Potter
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings

I'm sure there's more, but you get my point. It's like the fantasy genres obsession with orphans. They do it too much.

[redqueen]

32. One big exception is the His Dark Materials series.

They only made The Golden Compass into a movie. I wish it had been more well received so they'd have made the rest.

[Neoma]

33. Never read the series.

[CrispyQ]

34. We need to change the culture which says that male is the default and female is an exception/other.

This.


seabeyond says that she sees hope in the younger generation - that they see & identify a lot of the shallowness of our current trash culture & that they are turning away from it. This morning I had coffee with another woman who echoed that same sentiment. I'm out of touch, so I hope it's true.

[ismnotwasm]

30. Women are afraid

I work as a RN, so I'm around a lot of women. Women are afraid, not just to go out to their cars at night--thinking that the constant fear of rape is a societal norm as opposed to a societal sicknesss (rape culture) They're afraid of being ugly, not sexy, fat, unfeminine. Butch. Angry, bitchy, shrill, a slut, a ball buster, a gold digger. And incorporated in all that, feminazi. You can go to urbandictionary.com and find a multitude of choices for what women fear, because we got a lot of names and defininitions. We've been taught fear, but it's an insidious fear, not at the forefront of the brain so to speak. It's work to root it out and name it. Naming things does have power, not in the magical thinking sense, but the 'I'm gonna face what this shit really is' sense.

There are subtle problems as well as the obvious ones;

Did you know that a recent study of 3000 woman, at what as it Yale, finally indicated that females are as good at math as males. Just a few years back that Larry Summers puke--a tenured Ivy league prof, said they weren't. Asshole

Did you know, they are finally have a conprehensive study of the clitoris? One that's mainstream I should say. The article I read was just maveling over, something about how the myth of vaginal orgasm came about from not understand how bit the clitoral structure really is. I was reading this yesterday. Now the penis has been studied and studied and studied, and it's not really that fucking interesting.

Lately, my thought is on education. Would women choose to be strippers if they had equal oppurturnity in wages, jobs and education? And I mean equal between race and socio-economic class as well as gender (I'm not here to talk about the men) Since anecdotally, last I heard is many strippers are working their way through nursing school, I have a renewed interest. You go ladies, I'll welcome you with open arms once you get here. But between slut shaming and youth worship and the constant threat of violence any sex work occupation, stipping is not something most women want for the long term. Neither is serving expresso half dressed and Fending off the random pervie stalker type.

But there you go. Our bodies are objectified just walking down the street, part of the problem with feminism is we have to constantly fight the sex and sexuality angle. And part of my personal solution is to decriminalize prostitution, (I include stripping, naked baristas, modeling for 'mens' magazines, the Kardashians-- under the prostitution category. Don't be looking down on a 5 dollor crack 'ho' just because you making more money doing just about the same thing) make it a federal crime to abuse or exploit any sex worker, make plenty federal funds available for those who wish to do something else, and oh, by the way, quite calling them sluts, holes, scanky bitches etc.

I also want tricks thrown in jail for the crime of purchasing a human being, but that's more in fantasy land in the US than the above. (And no, I don't equate a hiring for a sexual act the same as hiring someone to mow my fucking lawn, I've been down that argumental road, and it's just dressed up bullshit)

There are many heroines, many women to look up to. And you're right. Having to look everybody up instead of having having certain women as household names is a crime.

Here's one of my favorite websites to this day, because it goes back TO back in the day.

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/

[Neoma]

31. I should make all the points in here into a list.

[Whisp]

36. K&R