This is Why So Many People Hate Feminists

I thought this was an interesting blog post at HuffPost. I am not in the position to say I fully agree or disagree with the positions of the women involved, I am interested in the reason(s) why the term "feminist" has become one of derision. So I saw the title of the post, read it, and thought others here might be interested in checking it out. Again, I am not saying any of this is my opinion, nor am I looking to start trouble, I just believe this discussion is interesting and helps augment other views I have read and heard on a topic I am interested in.




This is Why So Many People Hate Feminists
by Kirsten Powers (with a response from Linda Hirshman)


In a Washington Post oped yesterday, Linda Hirshman, a self described feminist philosopher, treats full-time motherhood with the curiosity of an anthropologist who has stumbled upon a previously undiscovered tribe of people. Like SNL's "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer", Hirshman seems to be "frightened and confused" by this bizarre creature called the "stay-at-home mother." What could possibly account for their freakish behavior?

According to Hirshman: "The tasks of housekeeping and child rearing not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings."

It's incredible that the drudgery of working full time at a law firm is deemed worthy of women's "full time talents" but a woman dedicating herself to raising a family isn't. Hirshman then bizarrely asks: "Oh, and by the way, where were the dads when all this household labor was being distributed?" Umm, if they have a stay at home wife, they are probably working all day. And for most people, it's actually called being a mother and a wife, not "household labor". Hirshman later endorses the viewpoint that women should refuse to do 70% of the housework, ignoring the fact that if women are only doing 70% of the cleaning that's pretty revolutionary considering how much cleaning most men do on a regular basis before they cohabitate with women.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-powers/this-is-why-so-many-peopl_b_23328.html

I truly beleive this. Especially after having kids.

I had to fill in for my mom a few years ago when my dad was working out of state and she was gone as well. I took care of my brothers, and they were older, one a working adult who stayed at home, the other in college and one a junior in high school. For three months, before I returned to college, I cooked, cleaned, shopped, made sure bills were paid etc. It was insane! I was up at 6 AM or so, every single day, and spent my whole time concentrating on family stuff all the way until deep in the evening. I could not even imagine having to do that with young children. I guess you never know how tough something is unless you do it yourself, and it is easy to take what a mother does for granted.

On top of raising the kids, keeping the household (including the financials), doing some serious remodeling (we're do-it-yourself types), I've signed up to volunteer at the kids school. I spend time in each of their classrooms, and sit on the board of the PTA (as a treasuruer who must track over $100k of money going in and out each school year).

Yeah, I have a techincal degree, but I don't feel like I've somehow thrown in my feminist ideals by staying at home, kwim? I have a choice as to whether or not to return to work - and right now, I'm just too damned busy!

and for years I remember my mother was always involved in different things. She went to college for a short time, she has worked quite often, she was involved in organizing our athletic activities and so on. Not to mention, I was born with some medical problems that required lots of surgeries for the first 10-12 years of my life, so she balanced all of that with the younger kids too. It blows me away.

I have gone to school with women who have had kids and so on. And, listening to them talking about their time - lack of it - was fascinating. They'd have to wake up early, get the kids taken care of - babysitter, school etc - commute to class, do that all day then go home, cook, clean, do homework etc. And, still deal with the bills and any doctor's appointments, teacher's conferences etc. I was just thinking: "Gosh, and I think I do a lot of work." Not even close. :)

She's a year younger than me (I'm 45, and she's 44). I had my kids at a very young age, and she is having hers late. She has a five year old and a three year old. She works 16 hours a week (one day in the office, one day at home telecommuting), but the other 100 waking hours a week, she is a fulltime, stay at home mom. She does all the household repairs, yardwork, cooking, shopping, cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc. Her husband does a little cooking, but that's about it.

I don't know where she gets the energy to do this. I'm around her two kids for a day and I'm worn out. Oh, and she's a geophysicist with a PhD from MIT, so obviously is very intelligent. She has told me that being a stay at home mom has been the most challenging thing she's ever done.

Kirsten Powers is an anti-feminist whose work has consisted entirely of trying to make Feminists look bad. She works for Fox News. It's disturbing that she is being taken seriously here on DU.

As a self-identified Feminist for my entire adult life, I can tell you that the conflict between working women and homemakers is a phony one created by anti-feminists and a sensation seeking media. It was the Feminist Movement which first pointed out the enormous amount you would have to pay someone to do all the work a housewife does.

"Wages for Housework". Who do you think produced that slogan? Hint: it was not Kirsten Powers.

This Kirsten Powers person is NOT a "feminist."

Anyone who would think she speaks for feminists does not know what feminism is.

Looks like Rove's little elves are busy at work trying to divide Dem women voters.

why pretend it's an either/or situation? It's temporary.

Hirshman is just bizarre, period.

nt

The idea that serving the corporate greed-monster is the only way to be respected is the product of the propaganda arm of corporatism. It's fucking insane to regard wage-slavery as "liberation" and nurturing human beings as a "lesser" task!

You want someone radical, talk to a feminist SAHM.

would be making at least $150,000-a-year if their talents and skills were
truly accounted for in comparison with other professions?

What an upside down society we have here.

*sigh*

I'm so sick of that standard men-don't-do-anything-around-the-house slur. :eyes:

Dh puts in 60 hours a week at work, and still does plenty around the house. He is quite capable of doing anything around here - I keep him away from the laundry after the pink levis episode, but he isn't helpless by any measure.

as men we should be wary of looking at two differing feminist opinions and find something that a man could take offense out of it. In my opinion, the larger issue is the women's issues involved in the argument. If we only find something that pisses us off and focus on that, it starts cutting a little close to the stereotype that all feminists hate men. While I can't disagree that sometimes feminists might say something that a man might take offense to, I believe men should have a thick-skin about that in comparison to the bigger issues at hand. After all, women have been subjected to far worse ever since the beginning of time. But yes, you are right, stereotyping men has no value, in fact stereotyping in general has no value at all.

The term 'catfight' needs to be retired, as the word is more obnoxious than useful.
When the term catfight is used against women, it reeks of sexism, imho.
Saying someone is in a 'cat fight' or is being catty means somehow,
the fight or argument is not as legit as when men fight or argue.

I call bullshit!! ;)

Who is she to judge what is 'worthy'?

Is today's fashionable slave-your-life-away corporate 'career' model of life all she values or considers 'worthy'? Personally, I'd give up my fucked-up corporate job in a hear beat and be a stay at home dad if our finances could bear it. Does that make me stupid and unworthy too?

In my opinion, Linda is a judgemental, pompous, elitist.

issue taken up by feminists. In today's economic climate, more and more families require two full time wage earners. We need solutions to the wage crisis as well as child care and time for family obligations for those mothers who 'have' to work.

I am a stay at home mom and we are able to do it this way for two reasons. One, my husband makes a decent salary (not wealthy by any means) and two, we try very hard to live within our means. No new cars mean no car payments for instance.

Julie

another DU member, told me that conservative and church groups will pay women so they will be stay-at-home moms. I have no idea what the "wage" or whatever they call it would be, but they actually will pay women to stay home, so that is one way the "Family Values" crowd is trying to respond to the necessity of a two-wage earner issue.

and it is happening in just about every state.

who told me that. :)

So how have you been? :)

I was asked to write a couple essays for an anthology that a fairly prominent American Indian author is putting together. She invited me to be part of it last week, so I was pretty glad about that. just doing some research and so on right now. Off of school for the summer and not much going on other than the writing etc. :)

But it's scary that churches would be behind it, because there's obviously going to be a pro-church reason why they would shell out money. My guess is that the church will monitor the mothers closely to ensure that Christian principles are being infused into the children.

Not that it would be bad, but it would be unfair to children of non-church-going parents. The church would most likely be telling the stay home moms on their payroll "raise your children our way".

(edit for spelling)

the member becomes dependent on the church for work, school, social connections/activities. It is a boon for any politician involved.

i know plenty of non-wealthy couples with stay-at-home moms.

it just depends on how much sacrifice one is willing to make to their lifestyle in order to accomodate their offspring.

Every one that I have known has told me they would like to stay at home while their child is young. They would give up money for more time off.

I've been a stay at home mom and a working mom. Here's my analysis: Both involved hard work. The difference is that when you stay at home you are pretty much your own boss (you decide when to mop the kitchen floor, do laundry, etc). At the office, you have a boss who decides for you and holds that paycheck over your head if you don't comply. There are other variables, of course. If you love your job then that is what you want to do. But if you are in a dead end situation jobwise (and so many single moms are), you might long to stay home and be with your kid(s).

single mothers, unless independently wealthy, should have no expectations of being a stay-at-home mom.

Until the RAYGUN years, where she had to work so we could pay the bills and get off the government cheese. You are DEAD ON. This is a class and wage issue. People should be able to choose to stay at home and raise their children if this country really gave a shit about the well-being of kids. But despite the rhetoric, this country cares only about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Our value as human beings is proportional to our income level, and this is one of the dirty secrets of the US of A.

Hirshman buys right into this. She needs to climb out of her cave and get real.

my mom stayed at home when my dad had decent work, but during the Reagan years our reservation ( I am an Indian) was hit hard economically, so there were times she had to work. Eventually it actually switched around, my mom was able to get a more profitable job and my dad stayed home most of the years, accept in the summers and stuff when he did some farming work etc. But, even at the times when one of my parents were able to stay home and not work, we were hardly all that well off. Middle class, for sure, but a lot of the time they both had to work. No choice otherwise.

not. I know we aren't and it is ridiculous to assume that all stay-at-home moms are RW Republicans.

Big mistake.

It is possible to raise a family on much less than conventional wisdom would indicate. My wife works at a job which she enjoys, but brings home a quite modest salary.

With tax benefits, child care, odd jobs, it is more feasible for a married couple to raise kids on a modest salary than it is for a single parent.

I'm not disputing that wage erosion is a big problem, only the assumption that all parents must work outside the home.

...and I was there from the beginning, at least the beginning of modern-era feminist activism (ok, I wasn't around for the Suffrage fight.)

As far as I could tell it was always about restructuring society to give women AND MEN a whole range of choices about how to spend their lives.

Opening up all workplaces to anyone who is qualified to do the jobs, and treating them (including paying them) the same regardless of gender is one aspect of that.

Another aspect of that is making it possible for someone to achieve the same kinds of tangible financial support from society for doing what is unequivocally one of society's most important jobs: Raising the next generation.

Anyone who undertakes the incredibly complex, challenging task of parenting should be earning what their services are worth in a fair market: chef, chauffeur, maid service, laundry service, child psychologist, teacher, nurse, financial planner, negotiator, etc. That compensation should be sufficient to provide for their current needs and should carry the benefits of health care, vacation, secure retirement, etc., that they would be making doing that same stuff in a work place, working for others.

So, the feminist goal should be (and for me, at least, always HAS been) to find a way to structure the economy to ensure that parenting is supported, valued, and rewarded in proportion to the importance of its product, and that full-time parenting should be just as respected and valid a choice for any worker, regardless of gender, as being a lawyer, a plumber, an architect, a restaurant franchise manager, an insurance underwriter, a bricklayer, a phlebotomist, a marine biologist, a barrista, or ANY OTHER CHOICE. All of which should be open to anyone based on competence, training, ability, and performance, and not based on gender, who your parents were, where you grew up, what language your parents spoke, what religious faith you do or don't profess, etc.

THAT'S "feminism." So, no wonder people benefitting from the old system hate it.

philosophically,
Bright

If American workers could afford to maintain a family on one income, either the man or the woman could go to work while the other tended the family.
In a more perfect Union, gender would be irrelevant. The breadwinner could be male or female. Nowadays there's not enough bread for either.

Sometimes I think they don't even realize that what they are writing is so reactionary.

their children?

most women work AND keep house. If they have kids, they are the ones who are the primary caregivers. I honor any woman who is able to stay home, because I know how difficult it is to be a homemaker. I look at feminism differently than the author of the article-I see it as the right of a woman to choose-choose her occupation, choose whether or not to have children. I also see feminism as giving women the right of equal work for equal pay. I was raised by a single mom who was not treated this way, and times were hard. She couldn't even get a loan on her own, because her ex-husband had ruined his credit, and since she had once been married to him, she was liable to repay loans he'd taken out without her knowledge. I'll never forget the man who told her, "Honey, we can't pay you what a man makes. He has to support a family; you just want the money to buy hats."

"Buy hats?" I hate to sound violent, but if I ever heard a guy condescend to a woman like that, I'd be likely to punch him out. Equal pay is an important issue. Lots of people, even otherwise Liberal people, simply refuse to believe it even exists. About the only profession women get paid more than men in is porn. That's pretty screwed up.

Yes, it isn't an either or thing. Most women I know do both.

This was back in the 70's: when the layoff came, they kept the married guy over unmarried me because "he has a family to support; you don't."

Right up there with "Sorry, we don't hire vets; y'all a bunch o' crazies."

Any kind of job discrimination sucks.

when she graduated from law school, all she could find was a para legal job.

Happened to my mom in the 80's. She was in an office full of men, and did much of the same work they did, but they titled her 'secretary' even though she was all sorts of other things (accounts payable, account receivable, payroll, sales etc) just so they didn't have to pay her as much. And when raise time came around, one year she didn't get one. Her boss's reason? The MEN had families to raise. OMG! My mom said, "I also have a family to support. I have 2 kids. A mortgage. A car payment. My husband doesn't make near enough, and just took a paycut." She then threatened to go get a lawyer on discrimination (she was lucky in that they really couldn't do without her) and the boss immediately realized what he had said, and gave her a generous raise, presumably to shut her up.
I still hear some of that attitude today. Disgusting.

Bull. And do they also underpay men who are bachelors and have no families to support?

see my post # 64 above.

That's crappy. But were you paid less than married men doing the same job, with comparable experience, seniority, etc.?

to inflame.

Better to just turn it off and move to more relevant and, yes, intelligent things.

The "Mommy Wars" is an invention of the media. No woman in my circle of friends speaks ill of the other's choices.

The fact is feminism gave us the opportunity to choose. All of my friends, male and female, working or staying at home, lots of kids or childless by choice, are feminists - we believe women are people, worthy and valued as any other.

Unfortunately, many on the left have a vested interest in criticizing the "wrong" choice.

I'm thoroughly a feminist, and to me that means I believe that men and women should TOGETHER decide who does what, and not just rely on traditional roles. For some people, the traditional roles work very well -- but it would be a bad thing if men OR women felt forced to work or not work just because that's what "men do" or what "women do."

Over our ten years of being parents, we've tried very hard to split the child care equally -- because we both LOVE being with our kids. At the moment, I'm working outside the house and my husband isn't, so he really is doing much more of the housework. Other times, I've done more. He always cooks, though, because I stink at it.

What's so hard about this?? Two equal partners splitting responsibilities in the way that works best for both.

I'll never understand the hullaballoo about it.

and let me tell you, staying at home is the most challenging thing I have ever done in my life.

It does require great intellect to stay at home. Time management, planning meals and raising my child requires alot of thought and work.

How to deal with my daughters temper tantrums requires alot if studying ( her personality) and trial and error ( to see what works). No college degree prepares you for that!!

There needs to be more support for the woman who make sacrifices and choose to stay at home with their children ...and these nut jobs need to keep their mouth shut

I do most of the house work, by choice. I am lucky to have a hubby that helps out alot and who is supportive of my decision to stay home.

and guess what, I might not ever go back to work. I want to be home when my daughter is home from school and I want to be able to volunteer and be apart of her school.

their kids... I returned to supporting my student husband 6 weeks after my son was born. Three years later, I was divorced and didn't see a child support check for the next 17 years. The next time I got to stay at home was 20 some years later when my son was in college and I had to recover from surgery!

that you didn't get the chance to stay home. I count my blessings every day that I can and hope I can always do what I feel is right in my heart.

It is very challenging staying at home with pre-schoolers, I agree!
I was busy all day and part of the night, when mine were below the age of five.
When I returned to work, I was just exhausted and then I had to work both jobs!
Home and the paid one! I probably got 5 to 6 hours of sleep when I went back to
work outside the home. argh! But teaching my kids was very rewarding and enjoyable! ;)
I miss those days sometimes...then I wake up!! :rofl:

The real argument used to be that women should be free to choose whether to stay home or work in the world, whether to raise children or have a career or some combination. The people doing the writing were mostly well-off, so the plight of women who didn't have a lot of economic wiggle room, that is, they had to work in order to support themselves and/or their kids for one reason or another, was not emphasized, and certainly what the popular media tended to overlook altogether.

After all, women are frigid careerists OR loving moms, happy practical working housekeepers OR welfare queens ... :sarcasm:

The writer here doesn't get the pleasures of staying home. For many, maybe now most women, it's not a matter of choice.

IMO, this is just another side skirmish in the class war. :shrug:

don't you find that gender, minority and class issues are all pretty much interrelated? :)

For me, arguments all come down to class in the end, although for me race is trickier, as I grew up in a relatively poor but pretty much all-white world.

These days, however, whenever I'm being a fed an argument that's supposedly based on race, religion, gender, I always look for the class element, and it's pretty much always there.

Hm-m-m?

Just because a few feminists might be narrow-minded? Nope. We're talking hate. Where did the hate come from? And, where is the evidence that "many people" oppose feminism, let alone HATE feminists?

It just means equality--equal treatment, equal rights. And the vast majority of Americans support equal rights for women. Equal pay. Equality in promotion. Equal access to professions, to sports, to education. A choice about whether to stay home and raise kids. A choice about whether to have kids. Not being seen as a baby machine, a chattel. In my youth, there were almost no women doctors, almost no women lawyers, almost no women TV and movie executives, almost no women cops, etc., etc. I remember being raised with the expectation that I could be a Jackie Kennedy some day, but never a Jack Kennedy. Almost no one wants to return to that world. It was a sick world in which half the talent in the country was suppressed. I am a strong believer in motherhood, and in the tremendous intelligence and creativity and stamina it takes to be a good mother. I think society should support stay-at home "Moms," women or men. Kids need a lot of personal attention. But CONFINING women to that role--as women WERE confined, when I was young--is WRONG. It is stifling and crippling. That's feminism.

How did feminism become a hate word? Hm-m-m? Think about it.

Progressives and Leftists should be wary of accepting words and cliches from the war profiteering corporate news monopolies who have an interest in creating more cannon fodder and slave labor, and in profiting from repression, and are deliberately skewing the debate on all issues way, way over to the right--right off the cliff of fascism. This is coming from THEM: that "so many people hate feminists." Ask ALMOST ANYONE in this country this question: Should women be barred from becoming doctors? And when they answer, "No, of course not," you are talking to a feminist.

for political purposes or by others who just have some kind of personal agenda. Feminists themselves are not hated. Many people who wrinkle at "feminism" might - or probably- be feminists themselves. It's mainly because the term "Feminist" has been attacked much in the way the term "Liberal" has. The term feminist has been made to conjure up images of some stereotypical man-hating bitch (apologize for using the term, I am just making a point about the negativity involved here) who hates families and is nothing but a pain in the ass etc. You are supposed to equate "feminist" with "Feminazi."

I think any time there is a challenge to the white male wealthy status quo you will find exploitation and demonization of the term. "Feminist" is just another example of that. If you were to ask most of the people who have a negative view of the term, if they believe in equality and all of those things you said, they would probably agree. But because the movement's name has been hijacked into supposedly meaning something else, it is tough to get over a false and negative perception.

generalize from the single to the universal, as in:

I saw Hirshman on 60 minutes and was shocked when she announced that women graduates of Ivy League schools who had left their careers to raise families were making the "wrong choice". There it was laid bare: feminism really isn't about women having the freedom to make choices.(based on a sample of one - Jim__) It's about women making the "right choice" as determined by people like Linda Hirshman.

men would have it.

:P

Actually, it's a great job--if you have adequate family, partners/husbands, community and social support. There is nothing more satisfying than serving babies and small children, and undergoing the personal rebirth or rediscovery of humanity, that it can bring. It's a beautiful job, for men or women who are open to it, and can manage it. There are few things so conducive to transcending the self and contributing generously to other peoples' lives, and to the future. But, but, but...it is a COMMUNAL job, that our society makes very difficult especially for the poor.

The corporate news monopolies FOSTERED feminists who fit comfortably into the upper class, wrote books, ran glitzy New York magazines, and had time to be media personalities. These women had a profound impact--women like Gloria Steinem--but they were not representative. More representative is a working class mother who doesn't have the option of staying home, because two working class salaries were already insufficient, back then, to raise a family and take care of other responsibilities (like elderly parents); or because her husband abandoned her and their kids, and she had to go it alone for that or some other reason. HER problems--the problems of the vast majority of women--were and still are completely ignored by the corporate news monopolies. Thus, the more intellectual, educated and more privileged feminists took a hit of criticism as elitist. They weren't particularly elitist--they were just more focused on the problems of their own class, and they got all the attention. But an incredible revolution was occurring at all class levels--the result of birth control, and of a major shift in consciousness that may be related to the black civil rights movement. Suddenly, it was just NOT OKAY to have segregation by race. "Whites only" drinking fountains. Black drinking fountains. Etc. It was ABSURD. You had black US soldiers coming back from wars--unable to drink out of the "whites only" drinking fountain. This was the STATUS QUO in the South, through the mid-60s; subtler in the North, but still present (restaurants, hotels, and neighborhoods that blacks just couldn't go into). Can you imagine "whites only" drinking fountains? "Whites only" restaurants? Blacks having a separate entrance in hospitals, and barred entirely from hotels, on penalty of law or lynching? And the acceptability of it just up and vanished one day. It was NO LONGER acceptable. Same with women's equality. I remember a sister college student who wanted to become a TV producer, and she was told--circa 1970--that this was not possible; she had better lower her ambition or find another, more feminine career. (She did it, though!!!). But the barriers started falling, in every kind of job, in every profession--thanks, in no small part, to people like her who challenged them. There were hundreds of years of struggle and grief before it changed. And then it just seemed to change all of a sudden. It was absurd to discriminate against women. The Bushites are trying to write the narrative of what we believe along different lines--they need cannon fodder and slave labor, is why--but I don't think they will succeed. For one thing, they are unparalleled liars and hypocrites. For another, this progressive leap of the human psyche toward equality was just too profound. It is not in the power of these liars and hypocrites--and mass murderers and thieves--to change it. They may change some laws, entirely undemocratically. We will just fight back. They have shown no ability--or even desire--to persuade. How many people despise them now? 70%?

It's not that it wasn't still difficult, back in the 1970s or so, to achieve equality, but it was no longer unthinkable--to have a woman bus driver, or a woman lawyer; to have a woman firefighter, or a woman CPA. Why NOT?--was the question. And the debate on motherhood began. The trouble with our society is that it never seriously addressed the issue of motherhood from a working class perspective--meaning, maternity leave without penalty (loss of income, loss of advancement), decent health care and schools for all, and adequate support of pregnant women, new mothers, fatherhood and small children. The European and Scandinavian societies were far, far in advance of us. They in general consider fostering motherhood to be a COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF SOCIETY and a BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. If you view children as potential cannon fodder and slave labor--as our Corporate Rulers do--what do they care about the good of society, child nutrition and nuturance, good schools and the rest, for the working class? They can go to Saipan, or Cambodia, or any number of third world countries for hungry labor with no unions, and here, they can entice the poor into the military, to go fight their corporate wars. We unfortunately allowed this attitude to reign supreme--or, I should say, we didn't exactly allow it, but it happened to us, because of loss of our sovereignty as a people (and, now, our loss of our right to vote as well). The Europeans and Scandinavians, and the English, ended up with far more democratic societies than ours, with far more responsive governments. Our Corporate Rulers are hostile to motherhood and family. They couldn't be more hostile to it. They exploit it politically, with utter hypocrisy; and they exploit it to sell products. But they want no collective responsibility for children and healthy families.

So the debate over "feminism" got way screwed up, in this country. The Corporate Rulers dominate it, with caricatures and propaganda. And poor and working women are left to fight their own battles. Feminine VALUES--peacefulness, nurturance, cooperation, joy in nature, conflict resolution (as opposed to aggression), the common sense of the hen (as opposed to the peacock) and all those positive things that we associate with women's different biology and traditional roles--are left in the dust in Corporate America, and we consequently suffer a great imbalance that is not present in other cultures that value motherhood and SUPPORT IT with common good programs. Women in our culture are pushed to extremes of choice. And so are men.

The "feminazi" that Rush Limbaugh hates is a phantom, a caricature. It's the result of Corporate dominance of the discussion. He is serving their propaganda goal of shoving off all responsibility for the health of our society. Why isn't he interviewing working class women and asking them what THEY think? He'd get an earful! And he would never do that. His purpose is to serve his Corporate Masters with a sort of low-minded, locker room attitude toward women, and, in a way, to feed on resentment of successful women. And other Corporate lapdogs pick up the same or similar "talking points." Some discussion.

We of the True Majority would be well to ignore it, but to go further than just to tune it out. We need to avoid THINKING LIKE THAT, and accepting their terms.

And, above everything else, we need to restore our right to vote, so that we can bust the corporate news monopolies, and open our public airwaves to real debate.

Why bother about what fascists call you, if you let them continue to count all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls? I mean, really. What do we expect?

For millennia women have been oppressed and forced into servitude and treated as chattel. Only in the last few decades have women even approached equality with men in a social and legal way. There is a natural reaction against women who would remain voluntarily in what has traditionally been roles of involuntary servitude. Freed slaves would look with negativity upon slaves who wish voluntarily to remain slaves or at least to continue to act as though they were still slaves. The "Uncle Toms" of the Civil rights era and the "Apples" of the Aboriginal Rights movement were similar occurrences. It is to be expected...

or both?

Either that, or she's an alien from another dimension.

better than fine. my family is healthy happy and balanced. none of us is over worked. all of us get down time. and i make sure i am intellectually stimulated on many different fronts.

carry on...........

what is your set up? :)

i got married old and children older. figured i would go back to work. never liked the attitude towards stay at home. have no desire to a life time of cleaning up after people or cooking. not what i excel at. but....... i do excel at loving, nurturing and creating a peaceful environment. so.... that is my job, and i do it well, i take it seriously and i am respected, loved and appreciated for it.

I am a proud feminist. A "career woman" and a "stay at home mom" and an anti-corporate, work-cause-I-have-to activist who may or may not decide to have kids(me) can ALL be feminists.

Not many feminists would make the points raised in the article. The problem, for me, personally, with staying at home and raising kids, is the financial position you, as an individual, are putting yourself in. Then there's the whole problem of the inability of the workforce to adapt to the biological timing of women having children vs. moving up in their field. We have so much to worry about, to juggle. But I would never assume a stay at home mom isn't a feminist or that she is somehow of less (or more) worth than any other woman.

that appeared in American Prospect in December '05?

I don't find what Linda Hirshman has to say all that outrageous.

And I really don't subscribe to "raising your children is the most important thing a woman will ever do." For instance, I'd rather someone who is capable of, say, researching a cure for juvenile diabetes do so, and save many, many children from that disease, instead of staying at home and raising their own child.

Before everyone jumps on me, I'm not saying child-rearing is un-important ... it's just not the most important job any/every person could do.

And let's face it folks, housework and childrearing ARE filled with drudgery and certainly not rewarded/compensated in our culture.

was left to her own devices with a group of small children. There were support networks that simply don't currently exist in society - to the detriment of ALL women, whether they have a paying job or not.

without getting into arguments about classism, slavery, patriarchy.

The conservatives are getting a leg up on the issue while the rest of us argue why and blame our pet pariahs.

it was not as bad as I expected per the comments.

When my kids were little,I chose to be a SAHM, working moms were snarky, when I went to work full time, SAHMs were snarky--damned if you do and damned if you don't it seems.

As a SAHM who now works full-time from home for the most part...Both hate me equally.lol

I think it depends on the woman and her circumstances. A lawyer giving up her practice or a ceo resigning to have children seems a waste, so I do agree with the author in that respect. However, paying close to 300 a week for daycare, plus the day to day expenses of holding a job(transportation,clothing,lunch)to bring home just a few extra bucks makes no sense either.IMO

I just got back from doing some stuff and finished reading Hirshman's articles. I don't know, I can't say I fully agree with either woman on this issue. They both have some points I suppose, but neither convinced me of anything in particular.

and has written at least one anti-Feminist book.

I wouldn't take anything she has to say about Feminism seriously. The title of her piece is a dead giveaway to her intentions.

I didn't even look at the bio, I just read the piece.

was a better position for feminism, along with maintaining a woman's right to enter the workplace. And yes, I have had a number of women tell me they were alienated form the feminist movement due to what they felt were degrading comments about their choice to be a stay-at-home Mom.

I think there are more feminists in the United States then feminist haters. feminist haters get press. non haters don't.

I've done both. Both utilizes various skills, patience and intellect. On bad days, both are hard. On good days, both are glorious. The end.

I doubt many real mothers are in a position to look down on mothers who made a different choice than they did, because they know how hard it can be, to balance the need for a job and taking care of baby.

It sure must be election year and the RW chess players are setting up their pieces for the final kill. Also, here comes the strawman. As a woman who had to work all her life out of necessity as did most of my friends, we envied the wife who could stay home to be there for her children. We didn't look down on her as the author of that crap seems to imply. Also, those lucky enough to stay at home also had plenty of household help.

Since about half the work force are women who are single mothers, usually from divorce, our feminism stemmed from the need for better wages and higher promotions so we could afford to raise our children often with very little help from their birth fathers.

"Also, those lucky enough to stay at home also had plenty of household help."

I did stay home after my second son was born but help I had not!! ;)
Although my husband did help out when he got home sometimes and we were poor!
It's a long story but I stayed home for awhile until the 'divorce'!
;)

permanently were the ones with wealthy husbands. Some others like yourself stayed home for awhile after the birth of a child but generally found themselves going back to work out of necessity once the kid was potty trained. They also were expected to run the house, and take care of all domestic matters, even if hubby helped out a little with the shopping and housework.

Yet the husband never took full charge. I know mine didn't. If I didn't ask him to do any chore, it didn't get done until I asked him to, even if I had to ask the same thing every week forever and ever. The men in my generation were never trained to lift a finger to do "women's work". My son-in-law is different thank goodness. He will do many chores without being asked, yet he still sort of helps out, while the whole picture of getting the domestic chores done is still on the shoulders of my stepdaughter who also works a full time job.

promote the VALUE of women staying at home with their children.

I'm a "feminist" and I believe that a child best benefits from a stay at home parent, whoever that may be. In the world of robber barons and Mr. Potters these day, women are often forced out into the work force, which was actively pursued by the wealthiest families through the feminist movement so that women could be taxed as well.

The feminist movement was infiltrated by the wealthiest male interests ironically enough to promote women "DOING IT ALL". Literally. And guess who was behind it. Some of the wealthiest white males including Rockefellers.

Do you not think the culture should be putting more emphasis on MEN staying at home with the children? Because that is what Hirshman was REALLY arguing.

Powers was being very disingenuous. She was quoting an article that refered to an earlier article. The thing is it seem that the sentiment being highlighted was NOT what Hirshman had actually said, but was what people were SAYING she said.

Nice.

That's not what I got from it.

The answer to your first question is yes.

Real feminists understand and appreciate the work of being a mother, and the struggle that ensues when we are expected to be:

Perfect mother
Regain perfect body shortly after birth
Perfect housekeeper
Equal wage earner
Principal child care giver
Pet mommy
House manager
Employee of the Month
Nutritionist
School liaison
Social Secretary
Sex Goddess
Taxi Driver
Posseser of flat stomach, perky breasts, toned body
Rememberer of all relatives birthdays
Party Planner

We're supposed to be able to do it all.. and we're denigrated for either being a full time mom or a full time employee. We're expected to do it all. I mean isn't that the reality?

Internet pornography has to do with it? Isn't that a choice? Is Powers arguing we need more government control of the 'Net to regulate and criminalize adult content?

Why is it being brought up now?

the one I posted is from today, and the one from the WaPost is yesterday.

on edit

Oh nevermind, you must be referring to her American Prospect article, from last year. My bad. I get it.

here is the one linked in the OP article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html

And here is the one where she supposedly made the comments that are being vilified here:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659

Now here is something Kirsten Powers doesn't tell you, and I have to wonder why? In the article she links to, Hirshman is describing the REACTION to the earlier article (linked above). If you read that earlier article you find that Hirshman does not actually say what what she is saying in thelater article.

Have a look at the quote in full:



It seems to me, after having actually read the American Propsect article that what she is saying above is actually a reference to the REACTION she received, not what she actually said. In fact having read what she said in the American Prospect, I totally agree with her.

She is saying in that article that women are choosing to take the domestic role in numbers that men would never do. She is saying that the reason for this is that feminism seemed to forget about the home - they worked very hard to bring equality to the workplace but just seemed to ignore the fact that men, and even women, were not changing their preprogrammed ideas of what is worthy work for a woman and what is worthy work for a man, and thus women are falling into it for want of knowing any better.

As she quotes "A man who refuses to read, is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read". This was her argument. Not that staying at home was per se beneath intelligent women, but that that is exactly the way the world, including women perceive staying at home in regards to men. For them to stay at home would be seen as them wasting their talents, but women are cheered for throwing away years of hard work gaining qualifications, in order to stay home.

Does that sound like same hardcore anti-male, anti-child feminazi? Not to me.

Just read her actual words, and I am sure you will agree.


PS: You all know that Kirsten Powers works for FOx News, don't you?

She makes excellent points. I have read posts here from women feeling "trapped" at home with a small child and no one to talk to, and I am pretty sure that housework is not a rewarding career that anyone would choose if they had other options.

It's hard to say.

In most places this entire discussion would be bizarre.

People do what they have to do in this regressive, almost feudal economy.



Very few people are paying any attention at all to the arguments of those Fine Ladies in their Ivory Towers and Manor Houses.

The Republicans are replaying all the golden oldies for this election.

And most of what the RW says can be summed up as "They don't like you. They want to change your way of life. Fear them." Other, other, other, other...

It's absolute trash and it reeks.

Genuine feminist organizations such as NOW have always been at the forefront of legislation to improve the lives of all women. For the truth of what feminists are doing, go to http://www.now.org/issues/mothers/

Oh, and if you go there, you'll notice that NOW has been actively countering the propaganda that is in the OP article as well as the play it's getting on tv.

From "NOW Steps In to Defuse "Mommy Wars" Myth,"
http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2006/mommywars.html

If you haven't noticed, the media have been buzzing lately with dispatches from the so-called "Mommy Wars." Those who promote the "Mommy Wars" insist that a vicious fight is being waged between mothers who stay at home full-time with their children and those who work outside the home. Books, articles and TV shows are taking sides and encouraging moms to slug it out over who's doing the right thing for their family.

NOW knows that our opponents are committed to a divide and conquer strategy. By pitting two groups of hardworking women, stay-at-home moms and employed moms, against each other, they are diverting attention from the very real issues all moms and caregivers face.

headline when it's not LBN where you have to?
i'm really curious what if anything you found of value in this?

I'm also curious about this.

it was on HuffPost and last time I check that is a Liberal website run by a woman, so I saw it and read it. Why even ask that question? I say why I posted it in the OP.

One reason is that I was also curious why you would post the title as is but without the quotation marks.

As to its being on Huffington Post. Just because it's at HuffPo doesn't mean Ariana agrees with it.
There are links there about Santorum, but I doubt she'll be supporting him anytime soon.

I didn't want make up one of my own, that would suggest I was agreeing with the article or one of the ones referenced. I figured people would then see it was a post with an article and see the title of it and put two and two together. I didn't put quotes in, I guess because I was lazy. I know in the past, on certain topics, unless somebody is just looking to cause a fight, if you come up with your own title and it suggests something then you will get flamed for it. I never anticipated I would get flamed either way. The idea though, is I never meant to cause a fight, I just posted a few articles as food for thought. Most people were fine with that.

Yes, but does Arianna have Rick Santorum post blogs on her website? Not that I know of. I just saw something I was interested in, it had a few accompanying articles and back and forth between the writer and the person she was critiquing. I thought maybe somebody, if they decided to sit down and read all the articles involved, might be able to get something from it. That was my intention and that is what I did.

You know, last year a woman made a thread asking: "When has feminist become a term of derision?" (paraphrase) That ended up being a fruitful interesting thread. I learned quite a bit on it. Yet, I post a few articles on the same topic, thinking maybe the discussion might be interesting as well, and some people question my motives. I am not trying to cause a fight, I am a decent person and, as a minority, I empathize with issues of gender and racial significance. I want to learn all I can about them. So I read about it and posted this. Is it that far-fetched that somebody could just post something out of interest without wanting to start a fight about it? I would hope so.

You know, when I first go a job as a columnist one of my first published columns was about the discrimination in the work place of women, specifically minority women. This is something I am passionate and caring about. Am I perfect? Well no. But I'll put it to you this way, I try to understand and inform myself at least. That's about all I can say really, if others can't accept that, I don't know what else to say.

hater struck you as representative of feminists you know?
i'm really curious because it seems you didn't think too much at all about this before posting. i think if you had, you would have realized it strawman BS used to polarize women. this is like the ERA means i wanna use the mens room BS- meaning it's old. and most people with a genuine interest in feminist issues have heard this one before, manys a time.

I read the blog post, plus Hirshman's Washington Post article and her American Prospect article. There is value in observing all of this and forming my own view. I didn't know she was a conservative or a feminist hater. I don't watch much TV news so I had no clue she worked for Fox.

What is interesting to me, as I said, is why "Feminist" is a term of derision. So when I see an article on the subject somewhere, I will read it whether I agree or not. The philosopher John Stuart Mill believed in free speech and public debate so much that he felt even voices that argue the wrong point of view had merit, because even in a wrong argument you can find something which can lead a person to the truth. What she is putting forth here is her opinion and she argues that. What I do with that information and what conclusion it leads me to is another matter. The same with Hirshman and the same with anybody else who adds something productive - or what they feel is productive it may not be- to the debate. It's a process, so I read what I can and figure out who I believe is right or wrong in the end. For all anybody may know, the value I could have gotten out of this article, and the subsequent reaction, could be that I concluded the writer is absolutely wrong. It's just something that augments my curiousity.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a voice. The conservatives have many of their screwballs in positions of power and responsibility, like Pat Robertson.

I didn't realize she was conservative, I found it on a liberal website. I had no intention of starting anything. I just like to read all kinds of things and am interested in feminist topics and so on. So I just checked it and decided to post it and see what others thought.

a few attempts pop up this week............

Your faux naivete:

"I am interested in the reason(s) why the term "feminist" has become one of derision."

The same way-- as you probably know-- that "liberal" has been demonized, intentionally and methodically, by the likes of Limpbot, Luntz, Rove, et al.

And doesn't your use of the title, sans "" for your OP headline capitailize-- and perpetuate-- that demonization.



:evilfrown:

and what you are saying has lots of merit. Hey, how about this, add something beneficial to the thread instead of attacking the OP or get off. I could care less about a gender war, I'm a minority, I am interested in minority and gender issues, I posted some articles about it and thought maybe some people might be able to give some of their opinions on it like adults. If you want to start a fight do it somewhere else. I had no intention of starting one. I'm sick and tired of professional pissers and moaners who complain about any little thing, yet add NOTHING to a debate.

He is interested in constructive discussions and hopefully some opening of minds on all sides. He sees knees jerking on all sides of this issue and really does wonder if we can do something to further understanding and respect for all participants in a discussion on the topic.

Why can't there be honest discussion without misrepresenting and assumptions that motives are other than stated?

such.
faux naivete is spot on. as well as the comments on the title.

People should only be worthy if they measure up to what an elite believes is worthy.

In other words its their min wage argument. People who work for min wage do not provide a valuable service and should be paid less than someone who feels their job is "skilled"

I went to an unemployment office once, and looked up jobs that are considered unskilled. Fitters, boilermakers carpenters, or anything considered blue collar, thats total bullshit. I would put the skills of a fitter over the skills of a CEO anyday. The fitters job takes years of apprenticeship to even begin attempting. I guaruntee you these fat paid executives couldnt even begin to understand the skill and knowledge some of these "unskilled" professions take . Its the execs who make up these ridiculous claims of self important drivel

The term has been bastardized by the right-wing spin machine from people who want to minimize sexual inequality into meaning a few ideologue acedemics who hate men, think a world ruked by women would be perfect, and concoct bizzare theories about imperialism being a result of patriarchy and other crazy notions.

I have a problem with any moronic extremist faction of any group. In this case, this woman's a friggin idiot.

I don't like when women ridicule other women for choices they make in their lives. Too many people are too opinionated that their way is the best and all others are stupid. Breast feeders v. Non-Breast feeders, Spankers v. Non-Spankers, Working Mothers v. Stay at home mothers. It's frustrating to see women making others feel less than equal for their VERY VALID CHOICES.

While staying at home may not be the right thing for some women, it is for others. And it sometimes takes courage to stand up and insist that your opinion matters when you are told by OTHER WOMEN that it doesn't. When other WOMEN make you feel inferior for the choice to stay at home and raise your kids, then there is a problem in society. There is nothing wrong with taking a traditional (or non-traditional) role in your family.

Each family situation is unique, and you couldn't be a good parent if you were acting or living in a way that wasn't comfortable for you. If you have to work, then work. If you want to work, then work. If you feel it's more important to stay at home with the children, then do that. If you have a higher paying job than your husband, hell yeah! Let him stay home. Or work. Whatever.

OP's request.