Aaaargh. I just lost quite a long response to Amy, of The Fifty Minute Hour. Oh, well…. time to try again.
Amy writes:
- Believes that there is current, significant, society-wide inequality and sexism which on balance disadvantages women.
- Advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
However, he argues that most conservatives who call themselves feminists of one stripe or another are not actually feminists because they don’t buy the first premise. […]
Now, I obviously disagree with Amp on this one. I don’t buy into his first premise, but I consider myself a feminist. The reason is simply that I think that women in generations before me have won most every significant political battle against significant inequities that once existed in our society. Think about what Amp is saying: he’s saying that if liberal feminists won every political battle they’re currently fighting tomorrow, feminism would cease to exist. Sure, there would still be people like me who believe in equality of the genders, but according to his view, if there are no more political battles to be fought, there’s no more feminism. I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that women should no longer be able to identify themselves as part of the political tradition of Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan, and Jane Addams because the battles they were fighting have been won decisively for our side.
First of all, Susan B. Anthony wasn’t a feminist – she was a suffragist. Do I think that Amy (as a feminist) is right to see herself as part of Anthony’s political tradition? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense for Amy to call herself a suffragist, because that battle’s long over. There’s no need to advocate for (American) women to get the vote – they already have it.
Similarly, if all women and men are someday made socially, economically and politically equal, then there will be no further need for feminism. People may still identify with the feminists (as Amy still identifies with suffragists), but they won’t themselves be feminists.
This is something of a red herring. Feminism is, as I’ve argued, a political and activist tradition, but surely Amy doesn’t believe that making laws is the only possible way to be political or activist. (One could instead be in favor of overturning unjust laws; or one could organize consumer boycotts; or one could be a media activist; or one could organize community groups; etc, etc, etc).
Amy then brings up an excellent point – what about a woman who (like Amy) think that women have it entirely equal in the USA, but who still thinks that women are unequal in the world at large, and advocates for equality for women everywhere? Shouldn’t that woman be considered a feminist?
Well, in my opinion, yes, she should be.
(Would I agree with that woman about the state of the sexes in the USA today? No, but that’s not news – feminists disagree with each other about things all the time.)
Finally, after a mostly-reasonable post, Amy steps off the deep end:
“…but I’m going to start exactly that pissing match anyway.” And so Amy pisses away, going on to conclude that woman like Amy, who see nothing wrong with the US, do more good for women abroad than liberal/socialist feminists like me who waste time worrying about sexism in the USA.
Since Amy went out of her way to bring up the question, maybe she could point out the extensive programs the right-wing women’s organization CWA has to help women abroad. Since they don’t have to waste time helping women in the USA, I’m sure they’ve done much more to help Afghan women than the Feminist Majority Foundation ever has, right?
It’s ridiculous – and counter to reality – to claim that liberal feminists have ignored what’s going on abroad (unlike those conservatives). The fact is, not a single right-wing womans organization gave a damn about women under Sharia (other than praising those governments for banning abortion) until 9/11 made it fashionable – and there’s no reason to imagine that conservative interest will last after the fashion fades. Until a US conservative woman’s organization has a proven track record showing even half the interest of NOW or FMF in helping women outside America, Amy’s argument has no credibility.
Of course, Amy would never dream of applying the same standards to herself that she condemns feminists by. In the front page of her blog, I see her advocating for marriage rights for North American gays. Isn’t that “a misallocation of resources” – why didn’t she instead write about people thrown in prison for being gay in Egypt? Amy worries about the freedom of speech problems of Americans whose porn is censored – which seems misguided, in a world in which people can have their hands chopped off for supporting the wrong political faction. She even (to use her word) “whines” about the danger to religious liberty represented by a monument to the ten commandments in Alabama – a ridiculous stance when people in Iran and China are thrown in prison and sometimes beaten to death for practicing the “wrong” religion.
Somehow, what Amy criticizes liberal feminists for doing – paying attention to trivial American issues when there are more serious abuses abroad – she finds perfectly acceptable for herself.
Personally, I think Amy’s standards are inane, whether applied to me, to FMF or to Amy herself. It’s human nature for people to be interested in improving their own culture. Furthermore, a nation that never tried to improve its own flaws (or even admitted they existed), but instead concentrated solely on “helping” other people, would be a nation of insufferable busybodies.
There are groups who are too insular – groups like the Concerned Women for American and the IWF, who dedicate themselves entirely to partisan politics and feminist-bashing, and virtually never find time to try and fund girls schools in Afghanistan or advocate for more women in the provisional government of Iraq. I think the NOW and FMF model – groups that, rather than subscribing to Amy’s unrealistic either/or philosophy, attempt to improve the world both at home and abroad – is more admirable.
UPDATE: Corrected a brain-fart by inserting the word “suffragette.” Then, in response to a reader comment, changed it to “suffragist.”
UPDATE THE SECOND: Corrected an even bigger brain-fart by fixing the spelling of Amy’s name, which for some reason I had originally spelled “Stephanie.”
UPDATE THE THIRD: In response to another reader’s comment, changed “suffragist” back to “suffragette.” I’m nothing if not pliable.
UPDATE THE FOURTH: Then again, in light of Bean’s comments, I’ve changed it back to “suffragist.”.
I think I see what went on in Stephanie’s brain when she stepped off the deep end, as you put it, and I think it explains why she didn’t even notice and this could be hard to explain to her. You’re all welcome to say in a second I’m generalizing about the right, but hear me out.
Three words: zero sum game. Here’s the key sentence: “going on to conclude that woman like Stephanie, who see nothing wrong with the US, do more good for women abroad than liberal/socialist feminists like me who waste time worrying about sexism in the USA.”
See this through the prism of the zero sum game: if you worry about the US, how can you possibly adequately address abroad? You can’t. Because, you’re addressing the US, stupid, not abroad. Q.E.D.
I feel like I’ve been seeing this across the board from the right lately. One more example. I guess most people have heard the flypaper theory by now: Iraq is a brilliant strategy because having our GIs there getting shot means the terrorists cannot attack us here. GWB made this argument on Sunday. Clearly, if the terrorists are fighting us in Iraq, they cannot be fighting us in the US. Q.E.D. The zero sum game.
The thought that this is a salient characteristic of modern GOP thought worries me. But I suspect it will be hard to convince people to let it go.
There’s also good evidence for a lot of magical thinking in today’s GOP, so I’m not prepared to call this dishonest. I think people exist instead in what Coleridge called a “suspension of disbelief.” If you just don’t look, you may not have to see it’s crazy.
I’ll have a substantive response later, but for right now, I’ll just point out that my name is Amy, not Stephanie… :-)
“Suffragette”? Why not “suffragist”? “Suffragette” is diminutive, no?
“…I will say this: we should give priority to the worst off. Just as I think it’s misguided for people who claim to be in favor of universal healthcare to spend their time advocating for a single-payer system in the U.S. when there are billions of people abroad who can’t get a 50 cent cure for malaria…”
Yeah, and it couldn’t possibly be the same culprits involved in both my ever-shrinking healthcare dollar AND the circumstances that make it so hard to treat curable diseases abroad. I suppose the laissez’ faire solution so worshipped by social Darwinists, ifems, and other richly-manicured knuckle-draggers at large is that if we just let the U.S. system continue on its current track, we’ll ALL soon be dying pointlessly and prematurely of readily curable diseases !!!
Brilliant !!!
Cue that nifty keyboard riff from “Ebony and Ivory.” Or maybe that “Stretch Your Hands Across the Sea” song. (My, but I loooove the ’80’s, don’t you ? I mean, no matter how long they’ve overstayed their welcome and all…)
Fade out. :p
Cleis, suffragette is the more historically correct term, even if it’s diminutive. Why? So we’re all on the same page. “Suffragist” can mean anyone seeking to extend suffrage, whereas “suffragette” refers to specifically someone from the women’s suffrage movement in America around the turn of the 20th century. (or can it mean other women’s suffrage movements, like say in France in the early to mid 19th century?)
Or you’re being tongue in cheek, but what I say still stands.
Actually, there is no right or wrong way to use the term — or rather, the preferred term would depend on who you were talking to.
The term Suffragette was coined by the London newspaper, the Daily News in 1906 — scathingly they referred to the women as not real suffragists. By adding the “ette” diminuitive, it tried to ridicule the women as something small, almost like an imitation of the real thing such as one would compare a kitchenette to a real kitchen.
After that, many British suffragists, and a few American ones, adopted the term as a way to differentiate themselves from the staid constitutionalists who sought political equality through negotiation and lobbying. Most American suffragists, however, continued to use the term suffragist, choosing to not reclaim the insulting term.
At some point, suffragist came to mean someone who was fighting for the vote for women in a “peaceful” way, while the radicals, who would break windows, set fires, and go to jail were known as suffragettes.
Well, thanks for correcting my misperception.
“…women in generations before me have won most every significant political battle…”
If you’re a mother of one or more children combining work and family, you have some right to espouse (no pun intended) such an opinion. If you’re childless, weeellllllll…….
Heads up: This is a huge one and it hasn’t even begun.
Okay, a more substantive response:
1: If I can be a feminist by believing that your premises apply in Iran, but not here, you’ve just undermined your argument that conservatives are not feminists. Most conservatives, especially conservative women, do believe that there is significant sexism in many foreign countries, and most of them believe that such inequalities, especially those enshrined in law, should be remedied. I’m sure you can find plenty of conservatives who believe that Saudi women should be allowed to leave their homes unsupervised, that Kuwaiti women should be allowed to drive, and that Egyptian girls shouldn’t have their genitals mutilated.
By the way, I never said that conservative feminists do focus on important foreign issues. You put those words in my mouth. They don’t do nearly enough either, and that’s equally sad. I was simply pointing out that it may be a waste of all of our time to argue over whether we need mandatory equal pay in the US when women in Saudi Arabia can’t get jobs without permission from their husbands. It would be ridiculous to demand that we focus all of our attention on foreign countries because, as you said, people can and should care about the laws they’re forced to live under. But you’re right, after promising not to get all snarky, I went ahead and did anyway, as we’re all apt to do once we get on a rant. But I stand by my assertion that, for professional advocates of women’s rights, priority should be given to the worst off.
So why don’t I talk solely about foreign countries in my blog instead of wasting resources on less urgent domestic issues? Well, because I personally find domestic politics more interesting, and so they’re my hobby. Professionally, I do devote my time and efforts to combatting threats to freedom in the worst of nations. But in my spare time, I do what’s fun, and snarking about domestic politics is fun.
Finally, I have to respond to Helen, who claims that I have no right hold my opinion on feminism unless I have children. This claim seems to me about as anti-feminist as you can get. I have every right to hold any damn opinion that I want to, and I don’t need to have a baby to do it. The idea that mothers are somehow better representatives of what it means to be a woman than non-mothers should have gone out several decades ago, and while they bring a different perspective to the discussion than say, a female executive, engineer, politician, or secretary, they’re no more qualified than I am to hold opinions about the place of women in society.
Whoops, I had planned to number my responses, but then forgot, so just disregard the #1 in there.
Oh, and I meant to mention that I do want to commend those women’s groups, regardless of political orientation, that do have extensive programs abroad. While I may disagree with NOW about affirmative action and equal pay, they were among the first to call attention to the plight of women in Afghanistan, and for that and other actions like it, we should all be grateful.
Thanks for the information about “suffragette” – I didn’t know as much. Actually, after bean’s discription of the radical use of “suffragette,” I’m tempted to prefer that word!
Yeah, I meant “description.” More coffee!
“…I was simply pointing out that it may be a waste of all of our time to argue over whether we need mandatory equal pay in the US when women in Saudi Arabia can’t get jobs without permission from their husbands…”
I wonder why this sort of comparison can be used to guilt-trip feminists into silence, but not sexists and their Rightie apologists. If an equally-talented American woman lawyer is making a few grand less a year than that guy in the office next door, how come you never hear conservative women grumbling at the senior partners that they should simply stop defending this unforgivable practice ? That such defense is a waste of time and effort that could be better devoted to helping women and kids in the Mid-east or wherever ? Shouldn’t all these conservatives be rising as one to shout, or at least whisper in a lady-like voice, “Why don’t you just stop wasting time with your stupid excuses and pay her what she’s rightfully earned ? If you can’t do that, cut Mr. Lawyer’s pay *back* to the level of Ms. Lawyer’s pay and send the difference to a Mid-East charity, you selfish shits !!”
Well, it’s obvious that this will never happen because A) Conservative women prefer to negatively judge other women, preferably any woman to the Left of themselves. Negatively judging men, who make up the majority of their benefactors and audience, after all, would be scaaaary and haaaarrd. And B) Conservatives being historically disinclined to willfully share wealth and power, wouldn’t really want masses of women to earn what men do. I mean, it’d get awfully crowded and competitive in a big hurry, all that boorish equality set loose to buy up governships and to drive up the price on all the *really* nice property on the Coast. It would be horrible, all those icky feminists parading around like they’re as good as you or something. No, let’s give them one more thing to feel guilty about, one more chance to march into the battle of life with a hand tied behind their collective backs. Remember, Girls. A man who stands up for his right to the American Dream is a real go-gettin’ manly man. A woman who stands up for her right to the same American Dream on the same wages as he is selfish and bad and Just Doesn’t Care.
Thank You, and have a great day. :p
1. But I haven’t been arguing that conservatives can’t be feminists. I’ve been arguing that there’s no reason, in theory, conservatives can’t be feminists; and yet most aren’t. Adding the question of women abroad doesn’t really change anything, because of number 2. – a feminst “advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.”
Most conservatives don’t advocate for improving the situation of Saudi women, for instance; instead, they support the Bush administration?s policy of sucking up to the Saudis and pretending that women’s rights were worse in Iraq than they are in Saudi Arabia. Similarly, most conservatives support the Bush policy of abandoning the women in rural Afghanistan to the misogynistic rule of our various warlord “allies.” And I’ve yet to see a conservative be bothered by the loss of women’s rights in Iraq caused by our invasion.
Instead, most conservatives seem to take the same head-in-the-sand approach to women abroad that they do here at home; they deny that the problem exists or claim that it’s getting better so there’s no need to change our course.
(By the way, there were plenty of times that NOW and FMF disagreed with Clinton, and publicly criticized him, because they thought a Clinton policy harmed women’s rights. Is there even a single example of the CWA or IWF doing the same thing regarding a Bush policy?)
In other words, if a conservative feminist actually was engaged in trying to help women abroad, I could certainly respect them as a feminist. But it’s not like this is a common feature among conservatives, or a reason I have to suddenly acknowledge someone like Wendy McElroy (who has literally never written about the plight of women abroad apart from using the subject to provide ammo for attacking liberal and radical feminists) as a feminist.
2. Unless I missed it, you didn’t comment on my argument that there are ways to be political and activist apart from passing new laws; may I take it you agree with me on this point?
3. Finally, I find your distinction between professional groups and hobbyists unpersuasive.
A) So you’re saying it’s ridiculous to demand that all attention be focused on foreign countries, unless the person works for the FMF (or CWA?), in which case it’s suddenly not ridiculous? Uh-huh.
B) First of all, let’s dismiss your implication that “professional feminists” should make decisions based on your opinion that there is no more real sexist inequality here in America. For argument’s sake, I’ll concede that it’s possible you’re right, but it’s also possible that you?re mistaken, and most feminists are correct to think there’s substantial inequality still existing in America, which should be addressed. Is there any logical reason why the leaders of NOW and FMF should take your subjective opinion into account, rather than their own opinions and that of most of their memberships?
C) Even if things are good here (and everyone agrees it’s better for women here than in Afghanistan), it’s easy to see that they never would have gotten as good as they are if activists, historically, had followed your advice. For instance, in 1910 women in the US – while not having things perfect – certainly had more legal rights than women in China and in some Middle Eastern countries. If they had followed your advice, they would have dropped their focus on the domestic suffrage issue, because “priority should be given to the worst off.”
Similarly, the second-wave feminist movement of the 1960s onward certainly couldn’t have happened if Betty Friedan and others had followed your advice – there were women far worse off in the world than the average American woman in the 1960s.
When you say “women elsewhere are harder up, so let’s ignore what’s happening in the USA,” you’re saying something that has been true for over a century. Would you really do without the last century of American feminist activism?
D) I’m not convinced – even by your standards – that all women in the US should be ignored. I’m not convinced it’s any less painful and traumatic to be raped in America than in Iran; I’m not convinced that a woman beaten by her husband in Massachusetts feels the pain less than a woman in China does. Being homeless and not knowing how you’ll feed and house your children surely qualifies someone as being among “the worst off” anywhere in the world. But addressing these issues are major priorities of domestic feminist groups (apart from the conservative groups like CWA and IWF, that is).
E) You ignore the possibility that continued feminist activism domestically could increase the ability of American feminists to help women abroad. It is possible, for instance, that if there were a critical mass of women in the Senate and House (let’s say, >40%), the US government might discover a lot more enthusiasm for fighting oppression of women abroad. But that probably won’t happen without continuing domestic efforts of feminist groups like Emily’s List.
You dismiss the importance of the wage gap – but how much more effective could women in the US be if they had 12%-25% more income to spend?
F) Similarly, you ignore the possibility that ignoring what’s going on domestically could allow women’s rights to fall backwards in America, leaving American feminists less able to help women abroad.
Amp: Bravo!
I’d personally also like to know how many women’s shelters were funded or opened thanks to the deep pockets of conservative women ?
Or is it okay that men terrorize and kill women as long as they’re American men doing it on American soil ?
I guess if I were a battered woman in comfy jeans, who wasn’t subject to FGM, who could go shopping unaccompanied, and who had color TV and running water all the while, it would be unladylike for anyone to express concern for the fact that my husband was regularly, nonetheless, using my body as a punching bag;Much less for her to put her money where her non-existent concern is. Gevalt.
Just to be even more annoying about the suffrage thing: what makes you think that suffragists weren’t feminists? 19th century US and European feminists were interested in more than just the vote, you know. Susan B. Anthony, your example, campaigned for women’s property rights, for dress reform, and for the right of women to higher education. Some of the issues that 19th century feminists were interested in are dead, but not all of them. Unfortunately. Or as Amy S. puts it,
gevalt.
While I may disagree with NOW about affirmative action and equal pay, they were among the first to call attention to the plight of women in Afghanistan, and for that and other actions like it, we should all be grateful.
FTR, It was the FMF, not NOW, that was first to call attention to the plight of women in Afghanistan — with their Stop Gender Apartheid Campaign
Feminism is, as I’ve argued, a political and activist tradition, but surely Amy doesn’t believe that making laws is the only possible way to be political or activist. (One could instead be in favor of overturning unjust laws; or one could organize consumer boycotts; or one could be a media activist; or one could organize community groups; etc, etc, etc).
To expand on this, while new (or overturned) laws are an important step in achieving equality, feminists know that it is far from the final step. Even assuming that Amy is right that, legally speaking, feminism has won all the major battles (I disagree, but for arguments sake, let’s say this is true), that still does not mean that the work of feminism is no longer necessary, even here in the U.S., or even in more feminist-friendly nations such as Finland or Sweden.
Laws in place do not always act as a deterrant, and while it might be great to be able to legally punish someone who has violated those laws, the work of feminists is to prevent the need for those laws in the first place. The work of feminists (which continues to this day) is to change the culture in which women are viewed as secondary objects to be used, abused, and discarded in the first place.
Yes, there are now stricter laws concerning rape and domestic violence, for example. But those laws are obviously not enough to prevent rape or DV. Preventing rape and DV — rather than simply punishing those who commit it — is the goal of feminists. In order to that, we need to do more than create laws, we need to educate and change the societal view that allows these things to happen in the first place.
I am now the poster *formerly* known as Amy S. There are just too damn many Amys around here. :o
And y’know, the things which cause the need for feminist action abroad are the same things that cause the need for feminist action here in the US. The mindset that leads one to believe that women should accept a lower wage because hey, they’re lucky to be allowed to work at all is the same mindset that leads one to believe a woman should accept having to be chaperoned to leave the house because she’s lucky to be allowed to leave at all.
My apologies for the run-on sentence; I wasn’t sure how to properly puncuate it.
Amp:
Is there any logical reason why the leaders of NOW and FMF should take your subjective opinion into account, rather than their own opinions and that of most of their memberships?
You know, I loved your post there, except for that part. That’s pretty close to an ad hominem attack, and I would consider such tactics far beneath you. The point in Amy Phillips statements isn’t that NOW and FMF should believe her because they’re her opinions, but rather, implicitly, because her opinions are correct, and the rest of your post there pretty much tears a hole through that argument.
Sorry, I don’t necessarily want to just be the ref here, but I really can’t add anything else to this argument that others haven’t already said.
I doubt anyone will read this at this point (I really don’t check this blog nearly often enough) but amp does bring up one point in his post without expanding on it that I’ve often seen people confuse.
The ultimate purpose of any political movement is it’s own obsolescience.
That’s an idea alot of people have trouble with. why would one want to make an ideology they’re committed to useless? the answer is simply that they see that change as nessicary.
the purpose of feminism, for instance, is the eventual equality of men and women. when that day comes (good lord willing and the creek don’t rise) feminism would be nothing but a footnote in history, like Liu Bang’s peasant rebellion against the Qin dynasty (look it up, great peice of history)
the goal of communism is/was (filter that through you’re own ideological specs) the brotherhood of all workers united in a utopian system where all take according to their needs and supply according to their ability. if that was ever reached, it would most likely spell then end of the political party systems around the world as we know it.
quite a few people don’t realize a movement is nothing but a means to an end. I consider myself feminist, but if we ever do reach equality, I would quite happily end the struggle and work in my garden.
yeah, I do go on quite a bit, don’t I
Karpad,
I disagree.
I would classify the growth of democracy and the recognition that everyone has certain natural rights as a political movement. And to me, the moment that movement dies is the moment that movement loses.
There are some things that always require constant viligance.
The political parties and organizations that people form in order to collectively work towards these goals may come and go, but that doesn’t mean the movement itself will do the same.
I will always consider myself a feminist, and I believe there will always be a need for a feminist movement, even though certain groups that are part of that movement will change or disband.
I think that you are confusing political groups with the political movements they are a part of.
I’m with Jenny.
No-one ever talks about post-democracy – it is understood that democracy needs constant vigilence to be maintained. Same with equality.
To some extent, I agree with Jenny and Spicy — but I also agree with karpad.
I mean, certainly keeping blacks free and women with the vote are still incredibly important — but you don’t see many Suffragists (or Suffragettes) around. Nor do you see any Abolitionists.
Yes, to some extent, the political group will remain long after the political movement is gone. But, the very group will be so utterly different than the movement, that I’m sure you could really call them the same thing.
I must disagree with you, Jenny and Spicy, although my disagreement is more than likely a matter of semantics if we were to fully elaborate on our points. people don’t talk about “post democracy” much because the time when it would be infinitely self sustainable is so distant and alien. one might as well talk about “Post Dyson Sphere construction”; nothing but a hypothetical.
incidentally, there is talk of “post feminism” although that’s really just a term that anti-feminists prefer to apply to themselves, since one of their core assumptions is that equality HAS be reached. but that’s neither here nor there.
outside of a fascistic rebuilding of society from the ground up (taking children at birth and reeducating them under a total equality system, for instance) the idea of a post feminist era in our lifetimes, or our great grandchildren’s lifetimes is outlandish. but the great thing about equality is that, once it has truly been attained, it’s virtually indestructable, because no one sees distinctions that allow for discrimination any longer. German Immigrant families in America, for instance. the Schultzes are just as American as the Smiths now, and no one gives it a second thought. now, this could change back, but that would be based on international relations. by the same token, if true equality were reached throughout humanity, a backstep towards second class citizenship is, by the nature of that equality, impossible. true equality is absolute, after all, and removes all perceived distinctions.
for one last analogy (I like arguement’s by analogy, whether or not Plato considers them universally valid), power does corrupt, absolute power is by it’s very nature incorruptible, as corruption is based on a preceived inadequacy of power (“I don’t have enough money/territory/followers/guns etc.”)
but again, I’m going on in length. true equality (or true democracy) is attained by shaping the hearts and minds of all society. if true equality is reached, people would not look at the idea of women being equal to men as a concept, ideal, or belief, but a fact, as indesputable as “the earth is round” or “the sky is blue.” and that equality could never be broken, no matter how loudly sexists or flat-earthers scream to the contrary. they’re seen as crazy and wrong. in such an enviroment, the organizations would be relics, and would easily go defunct
it’s a long way off, but I’m perfectly happy to work towards my own obsolescence
In re. karpad’s point about eventual obsolescence. My best friend, a political scientist, likes to quote something from Fanon to the effect that after the (sucessful) revolution he wanted to go back to being a doctor, not keep on writing and promoting revolution. Forgive me, fanon scholars, for mucking it up but its something quoted to me at third hand over many many years. I agree with Karpad that the ideal for feminism is to create a world where our daughters *and* our sons and all the children in the world just *can’t believe* the stories we tell them about the bad old days.–Kate Gilbert
“I must disagree with you, Jenny and Spicy, although my disagreement is more than likely a matter of semantics if we were to fully elaborate on our points”
Yes – I think it is probably a matter of semantics. I’m just very wary of the concept that we might have achieved equality and that the time for vigilance is over… but you clarified that this isn’t what you meant and yes, generations from now we might be able to consign the need for feminism to history
*wistful sigh* wish I was going to live that long…. ;)
Pingback: Pacific Views