eboneste@BBN.COM (Liz Bonesteel) (11/18/89)
Before I get into all of this, I would like to make it clear that I am a feminist, I have always been a feminist, and I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I always will be a feminist. To me, feminism means believing that a person's dreams and accomplishments should not be restricted by their gender; that the (implicit or explicit) "Girls/boys don't do that" is counterproductive garbage. This goes far beyond any personal experience with oppression; it strikes me as a basic human right. Our limitations should be just that: *our* limitations, not the limitations other people have told us we have. I feel the need to say that because the crux of this posting is (as the title implies) how feminism, as practiced today, has failed me. Things have, indeed, changed in the last twenty years. I sincerely doubt it would have been easy for me, a young, unmarried female, to find a job, no matter how good my qualifications. My mother, who went to law school when I was eight, was considered strange; now, a partner at a large Boston lawfirm, she sees female lawyers every day. It is still not as easy for a woman to be successful in the business world as it is for a man, but it is substantially easier than it was when my mother first started working. It is accepted, if not always welcomed, that women are a permanent part of the workforce. Women have been accepted into what was once an exclusively male realm. This is all well and good, but sometimes I think it undermines the whole point. By entering the workforce, we have indeed shown that professional productivity is a human ability, not restricted or partitioned by gender. But what of the traditionally female realm? What of putting compassion before success? What of valuing - and perhaps sacrificing for - a loving and supportive family? What of trying diplomacy before grandstanding? These are things that have always been considered "feminine", but in my (albeit limited) experience has led me to believe otherwise. My male friends often feel these things too, but they are loath to discuss them because they're not *supposed* to feel them. We have told women that it is okay to have a strong and full intellectual life, but we have yet to tell men that it is okay to have a strong and full emotional life. We have failed to take that which is traditionally "feminine" and give it true value. So how does this affect me? Obviously, as a professional woman, I should be all set, right? Wrong. I find myself more and more falling into the mindset of my male friends. I confessed to a female colleague that I would like to have children someday, and she gave me a puzzled look and said "But you seem so preofessional!" The fact is, if having a family will hurt my career, I don't really care. I want a family more than I want a career. I'd rather not have to make a choice; but if I do, it's already made. And you know what? I feel *guilty* because of that. Here I am, a modern woman, as pushy and aggressive and ambitious as any guy who ever came down the pike, and I'd give it up in a second if I thought I had to. Thanks to modern feminism, my pushy and agressive and ambitious side is accepted and even lauded; but the side of me that wants to build a family is seen as an abberation, a mystery. When I admit the importance of that side of me, I cause *confusion*. Feminism, to me, means making decisions that are free from outside expectations. I find myself incapable of doing that. I have been well indoctrinated into the "I can do anything you can do" mindset, and I believe it. But when I start thinking about a family, and decisions I most probably will have to face, a voice starts whispering "Traitor!". When I realize the things I want the most have nothing to do with professional ambitions, I feel like I'm letting the side down. Maybe that's just me. But I do think we are in error if we believe teaching women they can do anything men can do is the whole solution. By neglecting that which has always been traditionally feminine, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are, in effect, saying, "You're right, all that stuff is worthless, but we can be YOU, so we're not worthless anymore." Instead of freeing ourselves, we are simply choosing a different set of shackles. Freedom means modifying the focus of an entire society, and we've barely begun. Family is not a priority for everyone, nor would I suggest it should be. But neither is career a priority for everyone - not even for all men. Personally, I'm waiting for the day when either decision - or no decision at all - is considered both viable and admirable. The eternal optimist, Liz --- "Nobody ever lay on his deathbed regretting how little time he spent with his job." - paraphrased from ex-Sen. Paul Tsongas
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (11/21/89)
I'm not at all sure that a man has any business responding to this very interesting article. But, I'll risk it. I really have thought about many of these issues, though of course from a different perspective. Feel free to post or send email (rshapiro@bbn.com) if you think it's inapproriate. In article <48390@bbn.COM> eboneste@BBN.COM (Liz Bonesteel) writes: >To me feminism means believing that a person's dreams and accomplishments >should not be restricted by their gender... >Our limitations should be just >that: *our* limitations, not the limitations other people have told >us we have. The problem is: how do you distinguish these two? I think it's a confusion between the two (and perhaps a bit of over-optimism) which is at the root of the failure you mention ("feminism, as practiced today, has failed me"). The crucial issue you focus on is having a family & children: > I want a >family more than I want a career. I'd rather not have to make a >choice; but if I do, it's already made. And you know what? I feel >*guilty* because of that. OK, consider for a moment the state of feminism. It's an in-progress revolution, not a finished one. All of us are, to one degree or another, in-progress people, part way between one gender system and another. The single most salient characteristic of this half-way state is the need to *relax*, to stop struggling against something as formidable as a gender system. And what does this need to stop struggling feel like? It can manifest itself precisely as if it were a personal choice. What I mean is, it doesn't feel any different from a personal decision because it *isn't* any different. The whole point of ideology (eg the gender ideology which makes women "family oriented") is that it works through individuals JUST AS IF we were making our own choices of our own free will, choices which "just happen" to be in conformity with that ideology. Thus the guilt. Something in you knows what's happening ("a voice starts whispering 'Traitor!'") and why. What happens when you give up your job to raise children? Are you married in the conventional way? Did you make that choice yourself? Since you're not working, do you wind up economically dependent on a wage-earning man? Since you're at home anyway, do you wind up doing the housework? Do you begin to defer to your husband on issues involving public (as opposed to private) life? You can make each of these choices, or seem to, and they can appear quite rational taken one at a time. And yet..what does it seem to be leading towards? Is it surprising you don't feel quite right about the whole thing? >By neglecting that which has always been traditionally feminine, we >are shooting ourselves in the foot. True but...at this point, there's nothing else to be done. It's like giving up an addiction. You have to give it up, completely; you can't hang on to it no matter how comforting it is, and no matter how beneficial it might be in another, very different context. If you do, you'll never really have made a choice at all. These are very hard and serious problems that strike at the core of why feminism is so hard to maintain. It isn't easy to live in a relentless state of struggle. I don't think feminism has failed you. It's just showed you that much remains to be done.
tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) (11/22/89)
Liz Bonesteel raised some excellent points about the problems faced by women who want families in the modern workplace. What I can't understand is how she blames feminism for them. All the problems she cited result from the old pre-feminist view that people who are serious about their careers do not spend a great deal of time attending to domestic matters. Traditionally this was done by saying "men" instead of "people" in the previous sentence's phrase, and assuming there to be a full-time domestic servant (the wife) taking care of such matters. What feminism has won so far is perhaps only a recognition of some women as "honorary men", but it has always tried for far more. Modern feminism considers child care an extremely important issue, and politically has pushed throughout the eighties for child care that would let people raise families and pursue careers. That feminism has not so far succeeded is hardly something you can blame on feminism; the fault lies in the inertia of patriarchal society. Things proceed in stages, generally small stages, and it's unrealistic to blame feminism for not delivering all desirable social change at once. If feminism were not trying, and trying hard, to resolve the kinds of problems Ms. Bonesteel related so well, then it would be to blame. But it *is* trying to allow self-determination for women in this regard and others. And, Ms. Bonesteel, I have been reading feminist literature since my early teens, and I can't count the number of times I've seen women acknowledge that it is perfectly all right to devote your life to children and the home if that's what you really want, regardless of your gender. What has been fought -- and to some extent, won -- is the freedom to make that choice rather than being forced into that occupation. If your co-workers, male or female, express such patriarchal, unrefined, pre-feminist attitudes as you have expressed, that is hardly the fault of a movement which has consistently held the exact opposite. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "Those Mayas were sacrificing not only pagan children, but baptized Christian children, for crying out loud! And they were carrying out those sacrifices, those barbarities, with great savagery, without giving the victims the benefit of the humane types of death that the European Church accorded even to heretics and witches during that century, such as burning at the stake." -- Matthew Rosenblatt, rec.arts.books
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (11/22/89)
Liz, you've said here things that have needed to be said for a long time, especially in this forum. Feminism, like any ism, can become a tyrany applied to stifle the individual when it starts to specify how we must live or be ostracized. I've seen a lot of women who have been pretty unhappy trying to live up to other people's notions of the feminist ideal. In the same way men who don't fit the macho mold can be made to be unhappy. I'd like to see a society where everyone can choose their own way without constraints put on them by other people (as long as they don't violate the rights of others of course). Then we'll all be liberated. Do what you want and hang them if they don't approve.
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (11/22/89)
In article <1989Nov21.225322.25204@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >Feminism, like any ism, can become a >tyrany applied to stifle the individual when it starts to specify how >we must live or be ostracized... >I'd like to see a society where everyone can >choose their own way without constraints put on them by other people But, Gordon, you don't *really* believe we're as autonmous as all that, do you? That's one of the major lessons of feminism: that much of what we are comes from outside any particular individual. The tyranny isn't "isms"; the tyranny is the ideology we all live in, the social forces that we don't even see ordinarily because they're so much a part of what makes each of us who we are. We will ALWAYS live and "choose our own way" within the "constraints" of the social context (other people, if you like). This is what it means to live as social animals. Feminism has simply made visible and explicit some of what was previously hidden and implicit. It allows some other options which weren't there before -- it provides the hint of a path to another, less discriminatory ideology. It's never easy or comfortable to lose one's social moorings; but it's a necessary first step.
marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (11/23/89)
I have worked through the same thoughts as Liz Bonesteel described with the following exceptions. First, none of my female friends or colleagues are as insensitive as the woman who said, "But you are so professional!". Most of my friends are about 4 years older than I am, so they are intimately familiar with the struggle to choose between a career and caring for small children. I know three who have suspended their careers and five who employ au pairs. Second, the idea that feminism has failed me is too abstract for my taste. I characterize the problem we face as a severe lack of role models, for both men and women. Here we are, my husband and I, determined to build a marriage of equality based on mutual respect. How do we do it? Whom can we emulate? *Certainly* NOT our parents. We both come from extremely sexist families. We can overcome to some degree our sexist training, but we cannot purge it entirely from our personalities. We are products of our parents and their guidance. The questions about how to handle two careers and children were not even asked by our parents, much less answered. I don't think that feminism or any ideology can or should answer these questions. We have to struggle and answer them ourselves, so that our children and grandchildren will be able to look at our lives and glean some small amount of guidance from them. They may not have the answers at their fingertips, either, but at least they are unlikely to be as clueless as most of our generation is, facing these issues for the first time in the history of most American families. Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@sun.com
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/23/89)
Liz, I agree with the response that seemed to be saying that feminism hasn't failed, it's just had greater success in some directions than in others.... and still has a ways to go. My SO and I are currently wrestling with the problems that arise when a MAN is about to be economically dependent on a WOMAN, and believe me, the system is NOT used to that yet. Valerie Maslak
era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU (11/25/89)
In reply to <48390@bbn.COM> eboneste@BBN.COM (Liz Bonesteel): Feminism hasn't failed you, Liz. As a professional woman who wants a family, feminism has given you much greater opportunities than your foremothers ever dreamed of. As an optimist, you probably assume that your marriage won't be one of the 50% than end in divorce. But if it does, your standard of living may drop but you won't be left in the dire straits of most divorcees before you, thanks to feminism. Of the 50% of marriages that *don't* end in divorce, do you know how many couples who hate each other, fight constantly, and leave their children with lifelong emotional scars, stay together because the traditional wife can't afford to leave and doesn't know how to go about working? And how many wives endure battering for years because they blame themselves for not pleasing their husbands properly or believe that divorce is a sin? If you want to get married and raise a family, Liz, thanks to feminism I don't have to worry as much about your survival as previously. Moreover, within the marriage you'll probably be treated more as an equal partner than as a chattel because you've already proved yourself in the outside world and your husband will know that if you become a dependant it is through choice rather than necessity. Spend a few years living with married women in countries where feminism hasn't yet become a powerful movement and then tell me that feminism has failed you. Watch them have 15 kids, half the kids die, be unable to work, have husbands who spend their money on drink and other women, etc., etc., and then tell me that feminism has failed you. Feminism hasn't taken away your right to be a traditional woman, it has just made it more possible for you to survive such a choice. --Mark
js@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jay Sekora) (11/25/89)
I think a large part of the problem is that feminism as practiced has had to focus almost exclusively on women and their position in (male-dominated) society. In my opinion, feminism is really one facet of respect and love for people as people, as themselves, as individuals. We need a term for `feminism' because we live in a society where we are taught not to love and respect men and women equally; and women get the shabby end of the deal. But the point of feminism is making *individual people's* lives better. Another way of saying this is that we call what we do `feminism' when it's directed at undoing the damage of sexism, or `the civil rights movement' when it's directed at undoing the damage of racial discrimination, or `the democracy movement' when it's directed against the oppression of totalitarian governments. This is not to say that labels like these are not appropriate and useful, but when we pigeonhole things like this, things get lost in the cracks if we're not careful. Since so much of the feminist struggle has had to be preoccupied with clearing a way for women in the workplace, and since men (and women in patriarchal society) have put so much energy into forcing women into roles as nurturing, self-sacrificing wives and mothers, a woman's desire to raise kids and support the people she loves may be one of the things that tend to fall into the cracks in the nomenclature. In my opinion, a person's right to be affirmed and appreciated in the (chosen) role of caregiver *is* important, and it *is* part of my ideological commitment, and it is "of whole cloth" with those parts of my commitment to justice and love and human dignity that have more specific names. As a man who considers the most important and worthwhile part of himself to be his ability and willingness to nurture and support and listen to the people he cares about (and incidentally, who melts into the floor to the accompaniment of muffled cooing noises when he sees a baby), I think I share some of Liz's feelings. It is ironic that, within a `traditional' feminist framework, I as a man can be proud of them while she as a women feels somehow guilty or traitorous because of them. But if feminism can sanction and support my nurturing side, it certainly can sanction and support hers as well. Sorry if this isn't terribly coherent; I should have gone to sleep a long time ago. -j.
gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) (11/27/89)
eboneste@BBN.COM (Liz Bonesteel) writes: } ... [T]he crux of this posting is (as }the title implies) how feminism, as practiced today, has failed me. } }...[recounts the accomplishment of feminism in getting women }into the formerly mostly-male middle-class job world]... } }This is all well and good, but sometimes I think it undermines the }whole point. By entering the workforce, we have indeed shown that }professional productivity is a human ability, not restricted or }partitioned by gender. But what of the traditionally female realm? }What of putting compassion before success? What of valuing - and }perhaps sacrificing for - a loving and supportive family? What of }trying diplomacy before grandstanding? These are things that have }always been considered "feminine", but in my (albeit limited) }experience has led me to believe otherwise. My male friends often }feel these things too, but they are loath to discuss them because }they're not *supposed* to feel them. We have told women that it is }okay to have a strong and full intellectual life, but we have yet to }tell men that it is okay to have a strong and full emotional life. We }have failed to take that which is traditionally "feminine" and give it }true value. Several weeks ago I posted something which I think relates to the author's problem with feminism: } [T]here is more than one current }in modern feminism. I see two major currents, which have become }divergent in recent years. } }One form of feminism involves fundamental social values, and was }the form espoused by the radical feminists of the '60s. This }form involves an analysis of social problems as deriving from }"patriarchy", that is, male domination (first, of women and }children, and subsequently of other males through hierarchy and }slavery.) }The other feminism accepts, for the most part, contemporary }social values, insisting only that women should be able to }participate fully in things as they are. That is, rather than }overthrow patriarchy (in the form of capitalism or whatever), the }adherents of this view would rather see women populating its }higher reaches in equal numbers with men. The second feminism mostly succeeded, at least in breaking holes in the walls, but the first seems to have disappeared, except for literary work. It is no longer a political force of any significance. Consequently, "feminism" simply led to the incorporation of more people into the existing system of domination, much as the civil rights or labor movements did for the people to whom they referred. Thus, while women are now theoretically free to make as much money as men, neither women nor men are free to exhibit certain "feminine" characteristics, at least not without paying for them as if they were an expensive addiction. The one who is concerned with her or his home life, children, community, and so forth is not the one who succeeds in business. That, in itself, would not be a great problem if it were not for certain contingencies. One, a very important one, is the falling standard of living of the middle and lower classes. As it gets harder and harder to get by, one's "addictions" become relatively more and more expensive. In 1965, choosing a less worldly, ambitious way of life may have meant not having the latest Nikon; in 1989, it may mean becoming homeless. There are many other such contingencies. One of the most important is the effect of profit-oriented corporate behavior on the physical and social environment, which in the next few years will reach a crisis level -- not a journalistic crisis, a real one. A "caring" attitude toward the environment would never have allowed things to reach this point, but such an attitude would have produced fewer Nikons -- in the short run, anyway. The system of domination reaches from the top to the bottom: the personal is indeed political. This is where feminism begins to connect to very general political and economic questions: to wit, why are we supporting this kind of society? Do we care? What can we do about it? -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) (11/30/89)
[This is a combination of the original post and a followup, as I requested a clarification of some details. If the posting is a little choppy, it is probably my fault. I changed no words, simply tried to order the various parts. --clt] > Modern feminism considers child care an extremely important issue, and > politically has pushed throughout the eighties for child care that > would let people raise families and pursue careers. That feminism has > not so far succeeded is hardly something you can blame on feminism; the > fault lies in the inertia of patriarchal society. Things proceed in > stages, generally small stages, and it's unrealistic to blame feminism > for not delivering all desirable social change at once. If feminism > were not trying, and trying hard, to resolve the kinds of problems Ms. > Bonesteel related so well, then it would be to blame. But it *is* > trying to allow self-determination for women in this regard and others. a) When Germany is on the line at 9pm on Thanksgiving, *Someone* has to sacrifice family for job. The rest of the world doesn't particularly care about our quaint social customs. If your company doesn't stay on the ball, the other companies will (and they will get the business). Some people point out that this causes employees to burn out faster. My reply is that the people who burn out quickly in such a fashion obviously are not qualified for the high standards/high paying jobs where greater greater stamina is required. As an aside: I know I do not have the stamina to work these kind of jobs. But I do recognize that all the chief officers in my company (who make 75k and up) do work 12 hour days frequently. And if they are needed in New York or in Boston then they go. Businesses have deadlines. If they are not met the business can fail, or at least lose lots of money. Sometimes the deadlines are loose. Sometimes they are okay. But sometimes they are tight and fatal. If you do not file certain forms by certain dates your company can be fined huge amounts of money. If this means you work 30 hours straight then that is what you have to do. I choose not to. I work smaller hours. This means I will not have a mansion, a rolls, and a trip to Europe every year. b) Companies pay people large amounts of money to sacrifice huge amounts of their personal time. An executive that works 14 hour days is a lot more valuable than 2 executives (or even 3) who work 8 hour days. Even more so for one who puts in the time when it is really needed. Like doing tax work during the Xmas and New Years holidays. c) Any feminism that causes a dearth in babies among proponents of that brand of feminism is probably doomed to failure. d) Business can't afford the changes being asked for. Already we are losing jobs because workers in general expect excessive wages and benefits in return for the work they do. (This applies to the leaders especially.) Remember, we no longer have a monopoly on production as we did in the 1950's. We are competing economically with people making 1% of what we do. The reason the birth rate is low right now is that there is no incentive to have children in the US. The standard deduction has grown much slower per child than inflation (It should be around 5,000). Add food, extra rent, and child care and you have strong disincentives. As a result, required child care seems like an okay idea. However, ignoring the fact that a government managed child care system would most likely be an expensive mess after 10 years in operation, once incentives to have children rise the birth rate will also rise. This means businesses will have to give more pregnancy leaves than currently. I have heard the argument that no person should be so important that they can't take 6 weeks (months) off to be with their child. But, that is exactly what *leaders* are for. They are essential. The troops may not be but they are paid accordingly. Case in point: Company I know of is completely the same except for the president. This position has no obvious responsibilities. However, 6 months after the new officer comes in business is down 30%. Morale is down. Productivity is down. The industrial side has walked out twice now. Can a woman in this position sacrifice the rest of the company because she wants to have a baby? Or worse, finds she is suddenly going to have one? In a capitalist society the business with the lowest labor costs survives longer and makes higher profits. The effects of pregnancy leave on a large company are hidden by its size. But a majority of employees work for small businesses. Can a 10 person shop afford for 2 people to be gone with pay for 6 months? Six weeks? Maybe if it is an I/O clerk but what if it is a leader? How to work it out? I don't know. I don't think women should be treated any different than men. But, I think that in the long run women will not desire equality and the responsibilities and sacrifices that it brings. I think that at least 50% of the female population strongly does not wish to be assigned to combat duty. I do not think that a majority of women wish to give up their stranglehold on the children in divorce settlements. I do not think women wish to give up their implied right to *not work*. I.e. I know of women who have quit working when they had a boyfriend or husband. They were not viewed as "bums" or "wastrels." Though I know of no men personally I am aware of men who have done the same thing and they *are* expected to work. I do not think that women are willing to make the sacrifices required by business of men with regards to family. So... change business? Won't work. Conclusion: In the long run most women never be equals. But, why not try. It may work for a while. It doesn't seem fair not to. All I'm saying is that I think that eventually societies in which women are mother/breeders will outbreed the societies in which they are not. So a majority of men and women will be raised by mother/breeders and expect to be or to marry mother/breeders. --- Stephen McLeod (aka Bandolar) So... what do you wanna be when YOU grow up?