Saturday, January 13, 2007
Week 2 Blog Topic
Let's continue our discussion of the various feminist and conservative interest groups we explored today in class. Remember, blogging is fun, but it's also part of your grade! So, guidelines are as follows: You must make at least one comment that is around 250 words. Sunday at midnight is the deadline for getting your comment in, but I encourage you to comment early and comment often to make the blog more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Yes, Beccaboo, I removed your post. I provide the topics for discussion, you provide the comments. Use the "free-post" thread to talk about things that aren't graded.
I really enjoyed looking at the websites today. One of the things that caught my attention though is that neither website (NOW or CWA) seems to cite any of its data. Does anyone know of a cite that has proven statistics and data? I don't doubt some of the information (like only a small percentage of women running Fortune 500 companies) but I would like to see some of the other research behind the websites.
I thought Being Jane was a good website. It seemed less divisive than some of the others. I thought their focus on outreach and charity was something the other sites seemed to lack.
One of the disturbing things I noticed was on the Independent Women's Forum. One article, under the heading of Wage Gap said, "Why Women are NOT paid less than men for the same work and how they can earn even more." I was under the impression that there was very little or no argument over the existence of a wage gap. I could be wrong about that, but the title of that article caught me off guard.
The other issue that I found...surprising..or strange...on Independent Woman's Forum was about sex education and how we shouldn't talk to kids about sex so much because the more educated they become, the less they'll want sex. The article confused me...a lot. I was wondering if anyone else saw it. Also, the article goes into a list of amount of sex versus the amount of higher education received. I thought the whole article was bizarre. Especially the conclusion that the author's Southern family had the right idea: not telling your kids anything about sex until they're ready to get married. Does anyone else find this...crazy?
I always forget to add my name to the end of my posts.
Jenny Holly
although, it might be obvious by my username
I enjoyed this project in class today to an extent. I didn't like how the women in some of the websites would talk about how "strong" they are and then ask for more because they are women. In the NOW website they talked about Hillary Clinton running for president which I really think is a good idea. Then they talked about abortion and how it should stay legal and how they found different ways to make it safer. I don't agree with that. That is killing a baby! There shouldn't be a lagal or "safer" way to conduct a murder. I also enjoyed the CWA website because I found a story about a woman who wore a t-shirt to a football game that had the F-word on it. That woman caused FOX Sports to have to make a public apology to the nation. It is funny how some word can cause that many problems. My favorite website was the Feminist Majority Foundation because I thought they had a little of everything. It also seemed very easy to join and it makes you want to read more and more.
Tyler Barnett....sorry. I'll get it right one of these days!
Today's assignment was extremely educational, just like it was in the politics and religion class.
When looking at the NOW and CWA websites both seemed as if they were extremely conservative in nature. Someone in class mentioned sensationalism, and I have to agree with them, but I also think that when it comes to recruiting for these things you have to be a sensationalist. Recruiting for these organizations is a business in a sense. You have to market your organization like it is a business or a venture. Who wants to join a group that says "Well this is what we believe and we write emails a lot" compared to a group that says "Those evil baby killers strike again killing "x" number of babies". Assuming that you are a pro-life this would boil your blood a little bit more than "oh... well... abortions are still happening.".
Concerning the RightGrrl website I was confused. I saw nothing on the website that had been updated since 2004. While outdated rightgrrl did seem a bit political to me it was still very conservative and did have an interesting book review section.
The last website I looked at was the Feminist Majority Forum's website. I think this was the best website and did not come across to me as political. It came across to me as an information database full of things to do to promote feminism. I think this was a healthy form of feminism that debunks the myth that feminists hate men. Like it or not, the myths exists and while I don't believe it, I have friends that do.
I'm looking forward to reading other posts and I'm also looking forward to the rest of the class.
The Internet exercise that we did in class on Tuesday was interesting. In particular I enjoyed looking at the "one thing" on each website that I found suprising, disturbing, or exciting. On the NOW website I followed the article that pertained to the minimum wage topic and found something that I didn't expect to find. The administrators of the NOW website found it in their kind hearts to pre-populate the message box for people to send to their U.S. Senators. Obviously, I don't intend on joining NOW. But, the idea of someone thinking and speaking for me would not set well. The NOW website is obviously geared towards middle-class, educated woman whom I am quite positive have the ability to think and speak for themselves.
On the flip side, I found that CWA seemed to take the middle of the road stance on political candidate views. They openly stated that "CWA supports NO candidates for political office". Then they resended the endorsement that Maxine Sieleman gave to Sen. John "The Sheriff" McCain. Right or wrong, take a damn stance! I'm out!
Yesterday's website activity was a good idea because it let everyone see other people's opinions even if they might be different from our own, and we may not even agree with any of it. On NOW's website there was one thing that I really liked, there was a link that said 'Love your Body'. I went inside and it talked about how most women are dissatisfied with their bodies. I don't know how that really relates to class, but I did really like it and it is an issue that women deal with on a daily basis.
While I was browsing around on CWA's website I saw the title, "NFL Apologizes for profanity", a woman Saints fan was wearing a "F--- the Eagles" shirt. Apparently someone was quite affended. I don't get all upset about something like that, and I'm really suprised that the NFL apologized for a fan's freedom of speech? ha
well that's my two comments that weren't related to the class, see I try to follow directions and it never works. I tried!
-Molly Queenan
I always like browsing websites. Most of what I saw I already knew. I am a member of NOW and I am the co-president of the Women's Activist Group here on EKU's campus and we are a subsidiary of the Feminist Majority so I know a lot about them as well. I wasn't too shocked about what I had seen on the conservative websites because we had looked at them last semester and my shock factor has subsided since then :) I was really angry about the the photo on Eagle Forum that we looked at in the class. That is just another way to attack feminists and I think it is unnecessary.
In regards to our discussion in class, I do think there would be significant problems if abortion was made illegal. I do think it would eventually lead down a path to the illegalization of birth control. I know one student mentioned that abortion is "killing babies". However, I do not think that it is our place to tell a women that she cannot have an abortion. I have two children and I don't believe in abortion but I don't think that I have the right nor does anyone else have the right to tell a woman that she cannot seek an abortion. That is a deeply personal and PRIVATE decision that needs to be made by the woman. If it is morally wrong then she will stand before God one day and be held accountable for it. We are not God and we will never be God, therefore I do not think we have a right to pass judgement on anyone else or tell them what they can and cannot do.
As far as the sensationalization on the websites, I think they are a necessity. It is very hard to entice people to take action when they don't feel there is a reason to do so. I spent three hours on campus last semester trying to get students registered to vote. You would not believe the nasty comments that I received while trying to do so. I was completely shocked that students can be so complacent about voting. However, if we had told them that if they registered to vote and voted in the election the drinking age would be reduced to 18 I have no doubt we would have had a different response. We are far too complacent about political issues when they don't concern or directly affect us. I think the websites are trying to make a point that we cannot leave the issues to be taken care of by others. We need to take a stand now BEFORE we are personally affected. If it takes sensationalization to get people involved in voting and contacting their representatives I am all for it!
Janice Clayton
I was totally captivated by the rightgrrl website. I can't exactly say why I was so intrigued, but I believe it might have something to do with the fact that their 'fertility' link was repulsive. The rightgrrls not only advocated a completely antiquated and closed-minded attitude about the use of birth control, but also deemed themselves "articulate" despite the dozens of comma splices, run-on sentences, misuses of the words their/there, and omissions of apostrophes. The combination of these two aspects leads me to believe that the website is mastered and moderated by idiots. Period.
On the other hand, I adored both feminist websites. They were less about convincing their audience that everyone else was wrong and more about creating a supportive environment of like-minded individuals. I expected the feminist website to be more aggressive (based solely on my own preconceptions), but was pleasantly surprised with what I found instead. If I wasn't a dude, I think I could be a feminist.
Robbie,
If you weren't a dude, you think you could be a feminist???
I think that's a valuable argument to be had in class. Because I disagree. I think men can be feminists.
First off, it surprises me that any feminist would support Hillary Clinton. She stayed with and supported a man who admitted to cheating on her with three different women. What type of message is that sending about the treatment women should put up with. Staying with an unfaithful and untruthful man is demeaning to women.
I am torn on my personal feelings about abortion. I never wanted children and when I found out I was pregnant the first words out of my mouth were "give me the abortion pill." Luckily by day two I had fallen in love with my baby and did not go that route. I feel a lot of women live with eternal regret for having an abortion, however I do not feel it is my right or any one else's to define someone else's rights and choices in that situations. I feel if you are against abortions then don't have one. It seems to me that the conservative websites were more about limiting womens rights, and completely alienating certain groups of women(lesbians mainly) then they were with empowering and unifying women.
Oh, this is Amber Morris by the way
The assignment was extremely educational to me, but disappointing for the most part. It seems that NOW and CWA are appealing to such a limited group of citizens. Their radical articles pushing irrational conclusions drawn from irrational arguments are sure to draw a few to click the "donate" button, but to most of the residents of America who happen to fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, the websites turn people off. I just do not think it is effective. Would a reasoned argument that disects both good and bad only to ultimately arrive at some higher truth or understanding appeal to the majority of America? Perhaps not, but at least their perception
of your organization wouldn't be as one operating on the fringe of feasible, political ideology. Feminist Majority got it right, as I said in class. If I were forced to define my political leanings, I would classify myself as a moderate conservative. However, their website appealed to me in a way that others simply did not. They were not over the top but still did plenty in the way of keeping members and potential members abreast of current issues pertinent to feminists i.e. reproductive rights, etc.
I would also like to comment on some of the other comments that have been posted. Jared described the NOW website as "extremely conservative in nature." I would have to argue quite the contrary. I think their intention is be the exact opposite and if you told the president of NOW that you thought her website conveyed extremely conservative ideas she would probably tell you that was not her intention in the least.
Also, Molly Queenan commented on the FOX apologizing for allowing the broadcast of a woman wearing a F--- Da Eagles shirt. It is her freedom of speech to wear that shirt to the game and I am sure that many others had the same shirt on. If they were trying to infringe on her freedoms of expression and speech, they would have asked her to remove it at the gates. However, when FOX airs this on national television, it is an infraction of a decency rule that ALL communication transmissions have to adhere to according to the FCC. FOX had to apologize and will probably pay a fine for breaking the rules.
Lastly, I would like to comment on Janice's comments about a woman's reproductive rights. Saying that illegalizing abortion will lead us down the slippery slope of banning birth control is, in my opinion, not true. I think that there needs to be a distinction made, to all the class, between abortion and birth control. While closely linked in the minds of some, they are fundamentally different. Abortion is the extermination of an already fertilized ovum. Abortion terminates an established pregnancy. Birth control prevents fertilization from happening. If you determine that a fertilized ovum is a viable human being in its own right then it is no longer a woman's right to make the decision to terminate another viable human life. However, if you are on birth control, you are preventing the fertilization of your eggs, thus eliminating any discussion that you are "killing" anything. Now, the question is whether or not the fertilized egg is viable and if so, when, etc. etc.
Lastly, I would like to make a comment about women, pregnancy, etc. If you are having unprotected sex without the aid of a birth control pill, then I am going to assume that you want to be pregnant; excluding unusual circumstances. Birth control and condoms are both free, complimentary of our tax dollars. I mean, if there is semen in YOUR vagina and you are not taking the precautions to prevent pregnancy, then shouldn't everyone assume you are trying to get pregnant? If this is the case, you wouldn't need to get an abortion. I hope I articulated that in the right way as I don't want to come off as insenstive. However, I don't think the point I am trying to make is at all unreasonable.
That's all. Class starts soon.
I was rather surprised by what I saw on these sites. I will begin with NOW. I am a moderate conservative myself and found myself disagreeing with many of the views NOW held. HOWEVER, I was impressed at the amount of actual news that was covered. I expected the more liberal site to consist of more politics I suppose. It proved me right in regards to what issues they supported. I guess I thought NOW would be more about pushing their agenda rather than making almost logical arguments.
The more conservative site, Concerned Women for America, turned out to be more like I would have guessed. I agreed with most of the issues presented but I do think they were presented in a radical way. But then again, the whole purpose of these sites is to get your attention and make you want to know more, not to make a logical argument, that most would skip right over. Some of the articles were a bit outrageous and unfounded. Take for example the "IPODs Keep Teens From Saying NO!" article; it claims that because teens listen to vulgar music, the sexually explicit lyrics cause them to believe sex is ok, thus allowing them to believe there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage. I can see the good that the article is reaching for, however the radical writing leads the reader to be more skeptical than worried about America’s teens. But I must say, that article did get my attention and it led me to reader other articles on the site.
I did enjoy the Being Jane site. It seemed to me to be the most neutral while at the same time maintaining a liberal feel. I think it is appealing AFTER looking at all of the rest, because it is the least animated or boisterous. It seems to be more about empowering women than degrading the other viewpoints. That is was I found to be very disappointing about the other sites; they seemed to try to put-down the opposing viewpoint rather than informing the viewer. There were some exceptions and some were worse than others, but because of the pessimistic nature of the other sites, I found Being Jane to be the most relatable.
to Benjamin,not all pregnancies are due to unprotected sex,or unusual circumstances(ie. rape or incest. My child was a product of correctly used pills and a condom, so there are reasons why careful people who want no children may still have unwanted pregnancies.Im sure your aware that this happens but your comment sounded as though the only reason for pregnancy is irresponsibility or desire for a child.
Well, after the discussion in class today, I came up with some different theories. I think feminism is unnecessary because women can do anything. Just because men don't talk about how awesome women are 24/7 doesn't mean we don't appreciate you. I know back home (Florida) women run the show down there. My mother is the head of the household. She may not make more money than my father, but she runs the family for sure. I have never had a school principal that wasn't a woman and now that I am here in Kentucky, I am almost positive that the President of the University is a woman. When I think doctor, I do think of a man. That is because there are more men than woman in that practice. That doesn't mean that if I am dying than I am going to freak out when a woman walks in the room. My main point is that I think feminist tend to cause trouble. Where I am from, I never here about feminist because everyone respects people the same way no matter what sex. For some reason, Washington is the worst. Maybe more women should try to run for president. No one is holding them back!
To Benjamin: First, I don't plan on getting into a debate with you over abortion. However, if you would like to be more informed on the link between birth control and abortion policies/laws please read the following book "Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History" by N.E.H. Hull & Peter Charles Hoffer. One more point about abortion. You are looking at it from a scientific point of view of when life begins. There are other factors that you need to open your mind to. There are social and economic ramifications of illegalizing abortion. Are you willing to support the single women who are raising children? Are you willing to pay taxes to provide these children with child care and health insurance and whatever they might need to grow into healthy adults? Are you willing to deal with the horrendous child abuse that will occur when millions of unwanted babies are being born with mothers and fathers who do not want them? If you are, then I suggest you start writing to the government because they are not in support of mothers and their children. If you would like to further discuss some of the budget cuts that have adversely affected many mothers desperately trying to raise their children please let me know and I will be happy to discuss them with you. We do not live in a kid friendly society right now.
Second, in response to your women and pregnancy statement. I find it interesting that you addressed women and not men. "If you are having unprotected sex without the aid of a birth control pill, then I am going to assume that you want to be pregnant". So are you saying that men bear no responsibility for having unprotected sex? I would also like your definition of "unusual circumstance". What exactly do you consider unusual? Are you saying that rape and incest are unusual circumstances? I should hope not because if you are then you are sadly mistaken! You might want to look up the statistics on the rape of women in this country and countries around the world. Sadly they are only based on reported cases. I assure you there are many more that are not reported. I would do look them up for you but I have too much homework.
"Birth control and condoms are both free, complimentary of our tax dollars" When using this comment you are assuming and generalizing to the entire population of the United States of American that we all have equal access to birth control and condoms. Again, you need to take a look at the recent budget cuts specifically related to funding for birth control for women. Also, if you have taken a geography class then you are aware that there are areas right here in the United States where women do not have access to "free" birth control and condoms.
"I mean, if there is semen in YOUR vagina and you are not taking the precautions to prevent pregnancy, then shouldn't everyone assume you are trying to get pregnant?" Again, you are talking about the women having "semen" in thier "vaginas" but do not speak of the men who put their "semen" in the women's "vaginas". Are you saying that the man bears no responsibility? So if a man chooses to have unprotected sex with a woman then he automatically is under the assumption that she wants to be pregnant. I can promise you there will be MILLIONS of men who will disagree with you on this point. You are again not looking at the whole picture. There are many men that force women to have unprotected sex because they do not want to wear condoms. There is again rape and incest. You are also being a bit naive by believing that all women who have unprotected sex want to be pregnant. There are many individuals in this country who are not educated properly on birth control, sex, and pregnancy. If this were not the case we would not have so many teen pregnancies. I personally think you are not basing your opinions on facts and you might want to do some additional research before generalizing comments on women, abortion, and pregnancy to ALL women.
Now to tbarnett...
You mention that your mother was "head of the household" and "ran the family"...how is that not related to women's stereotypical roles of taking care of the family again??? Then you go on to talk about women as principles of schools and universities...how is that not related to women's stereotypical roles of caring and educating children??? I am glad that you think women can do anything and feminism is not necessary. In one sense you are right, women CAN do anything. However, men will not allow us to "do anything" especially when it comes to working in a predominantly male occupation. I speak from personal experience. I was a firefighter for three years, from late 2000 to early 2004. I was harassed and degraded on a regular basis. My life was put in danger several times before I finally left because my life was not worth it. Did I do anything differently than the men to deserve this treatment? NO! I passed every physical agility test actually surpassing some men in the department (I was very very fit at the time and was a weightlifter). I did everything that was required of me. It did not matter. At one point we were on a fire scene fighting a fire and one of the male firefighters was told to back me up on the hose line. He refused based on the fact that I was a woman. I had to hold the hose line and fight the fire on my own which even males are not supposed to do. I exceeded them in many things and had to work much harder than they did and it did not matter. You cannot generalize that everyone has equal opportunities to do anything because it is just not the case. Just because we CAN do it does not mean we will be ALLOWED to do it. I have many more stories of how I was not allowed to "make it" in male dominated occupations and I will be happy to discuss these experiences with you in person. I grew up in Florida as well and there is definitely not a mutual respect among the sexes. This may have been the case in your little corner of the world, but I assure you it is not the case in the majority of the United States. You may have felt that it was so because you are a male and you would not face the type of ridicule and discrimination that a female would face which would make you unaware that it exists. As far as women running for president...the patriarchal structure of our entire governmental system is what is holding women back. I am sure we will discuss this further as the class goes along. I have got to get my homework done.
I would implore both of you to try and open your minds to other possibilities and that people may have different experiences than you may have. Nothing is ever black and white there is grey everywhere. I used to wholeheartedly believe that if I could succeed in life that every other person could as well. I became a very uncompassionate person because of this and I was wrong. Your situation and my situation is different and is not like anyone else's situation. Other people do not have the same opportunities as I have been given or you have been given. To generalize your beliefs to everyone else in the United States is wrong. You cannot grow and mature unless you open your mind enough to embrace other ideas and look at the whole picture and not just your little portion of the world.
Janice Clayton
After the discussion this week on varied feminist and the websites for feminist and political issues that revolve around women and human kind. I thought that the feminist majority foundation is really informative. They have a great setup to get people involved in taking action on issues they feel important. The site itself can be a little overwhelming and confusing for those who may just stumble upon it, but if curiosity is strong in the individual given time they might understand some of the links. Looking around I was compelled to actually take action and sign a few petitions listed on the website and then forward them on to some friends.
I must say though that this was the first time I have even been to a feminist website. It’s good to know that there are others out there who feel much the way I do on some issues, I mean I know there are, but to read about it and to be able to have a starting point of taking action this way helps.
While I did visit all of the sites listed on the handout from Tuesday, I was compelled to venture further and see what other feminist sites were on the web.
The following site was one that stood out the most. Maybe that has to do with that f word…. This site will actually lead to many did I say MANY, ok other feminist sites from all walks of life on all different issues.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/
(In class on Thursday, when we were discussing the f word in the urban dictionary and the interesting definitions it made me think of an old album my father has from the 70’s. The Title of the album is The Pope Smokes Dope sung by David Peel and the Lower East Side. The album actually has many songs that are quiet entertaining, but there is a song titled – F is not a dirty word He sings this song using the f word in every way imaginable with the English language. Using the F word as an adjective, action word, verb, and so on.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I myself stumbled upon an antifeminist site. How interesting…http://www.freewebs.com/antifeminist/
There is this one phrase on the first page that says, “Feminism is the stupid notion that women are men.” Well it had to happen; we wanted equal rights, now there are sites for Men to hate women even further than they probably did. There are some antifeminist sites claiming that women now give men in general bad names and reputations, but I think they forgot along the way, why women had to work together to get where we are today, Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all. Is it possible that maybe antifeminist is blaming the wrong thing? Ok it is sarcasm, don’t answer the question:>
On the topic of abortion we discussed in class, I myself am Pro-Choice, I’m one of those feminist who believe women should have control of their own body, however with the price of having consensual sex and getting pregnant should come with serious restrictions and prices for both woman and man. I don’t feel that women who have any control of their bodies at time of conception (rape, drug induced, unconscious, etc..) Should be restricted so harshly, but time constraints would be good. I won’t delve further into that argument, as we do have a chapter on it later, but if some women didn’t have legal abortions, there are much worse ways to attempt abortions and some don’t just kill the babies, but they can kill and destroy more lives along the path. If they didn’t have abortions, more children would be left neglected, tortured, abused, homeless, sold on the black market (for organs, sex slaves, couples who really are desperate and take an illegal route), behind miles and miles of legal paperwork to adopt in the US (that’s why some families find it easier to adopt outside of the US, much like a man getting a mail order bride, ok crude sense, but still much easier). I can also understand from a man’s point of view on abortion when it comes to possibly being his child. Why should it be just the woman’s say so over her body, when he helped to conceive that unborn baby. He can’t help it, that females are the ones that have to carry a baby, in the sense he may want the child and she doesn’t. The laws are clear for her, but for him they are not fair. If a female wants the baby and the male doesn’t, he is still responsible for the financial burdens. He doesn’t have a right to say he wants nothing to do with the child, unless there is an agreement between the couple. Well there is something to wrap thinking caps around.
Angela Sumnlers
To Tbarnett, concerning the outdated feminist theory that just tends to cause problems....
I think it's interesting that you talk about women being able to do anything. As Janice pointed out, in theory, women can do anything they want, however there is little argument that women worldwide face more obstacles than men and are generally presented with fewer opportunites than men.
AND A POINT OF NOTE. MEN DO NOT BEAR THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS INEQUALITY. As we have seen, there are many women who, out of either fear for change or fear for their personal well being, resist progress even when it will better their lives or the lives of other women. It is not quite so simple as "man keeping woman down." I think it appears to be so because man SEEMINGLY benefits from a system that oppresses women, but in reality, where one human is oppressed we are all oppressed.
So, on that note, women are also responsible for their social situation. Screw this qualifying blame with gender. HUMANITY is responsible for failing to protect the rights of ALL PEOPLE and to equally provide opportunities for happy, healthy, flourishing lives FOR ALL PEOPLE.
NEWSFLASH: WOMEN ARE INLCLUDED UNDER THE TERM "PEOPLE." SO ARE MEN. SO ARE HETEROSEXUALS. SO ARE QUEERS. SO ARE HERMAPHRODITES AND EUNUCHS AND TRANSVESTITES AND BISEXUALS AND SO IS EVERYONE FROM EVERY ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUND IN EXISTENCE.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
So, Tbarnett, while your mother might "wear the pants" in the family, and while the waitress struggling to pay daycare for her child that she supports on her own may be "sexually liberated" and "socially equal" because she wasn't stoned for having premarital sex and she's able to work in the same place as a man, I think you have a hard case to make in saying that women have achieved full and equal protection of rights and opportunites.
Once again. Not to place blame soley on men. ALL PEOPLE need to come to a collective recognition that any societal traditions or norms that place members of society in disadvantaged positions need to undergo some serious scrutiny and careful reflection needs to be made as to what value they actually hold and what they are actually costing people in terms of freedoms and rights.
It just occurred to me that I in no way, shape, or form directly responded to Dr. Patton's post.
I got to reading and totally lost myself in everyone's comments. Come to think of it, I don't even remember what she asked of us.
Maybe I should go back and give that a look....
Ok.
Concerned Women for America made me want to blow my *&$^%&$ brains out.
Big suprise there.
Both CWA and NOW had very pro-active but negative feels to them. The Eagle one had a more reactionary but still negative feel to it. BeingJane and TheFeminist (I'm probably butchering the names of these sites b/c I don't have them in front of me) were both much more positive and proactive than any of the others. Proactive in the sense that they actively sought to empower all women everywhere, as opposed to combatting the enemy (being the opposing side). NOW and CWA were proactive in the sense that they were highly politically focused.
NOW does get pretty extreme, but they do tend to base their extremism in the rooted effort to raise the spirit of women and humanity through the political system and to further the progressive agenda of expanding the protection of women's rights and opportunties to at least that of their male counterparts. That is an agenda that I, as a human being, can respect and identify with, even if sometimes their tactics are abrasive to someone who may not initially know they support NOW's agenda.
CWA was just ridiculous. I cannot, for the life of me, understand this obscene resistence to progress. Nowhere in the world have people been generally worse off because progressive social change afforded people more rights. It is the throwing off of oppressive and archaic traditions that we are supposed to be striving for. It is the betterment of humanity and the protection of human functioning and its dignity that we, as the human race, are supposed to be striving towards. That is our goal. That is CALLED PROGRESS.
So what is this sick obsession with clutching dearly to past traditions simply because they are past traditions. Someone please explain to me why homosexuality is wrong, and why we need to "protect" our children from being exposed to the evil wiles of the queer population.
I mean seriously.
There was some huge section in the Eagle site about education and how we need to fight the liberals who are wanting to teach tolerance of homosexuality to our children in schools.
Well Christ, apparently they aren't getting it at home, so maybe they SHOULD get it somewhere.
I then searched the word "tolerance" on the CWA cite, and sweet lord. There were these articles talking titled "How Far Will This Liberal Tolerance Go?" or something like that. Freaking out about teaching our children to be tolerant in schools, and that it was an infringement on the CHILD'S right to have freedom of religion. I'm sorry, but when did human decency and tolerence become confined to some specific religion? And I find it funny that any religious person, ESPECIALLY A CHRISTIAN PERSON, would object to their children learning about love and tolerance and acceptance of their brothers and sisters since, uh, I don't know, THERE'S A WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT ABOUT IT.
Ug. It's 1 am, and I have to fly to Rhode Island in the morning for a conference on genocide.
But screw protecting the rights of African people to live and not be raped or slaughtered or oppressed. Because, you know, we historically did those things, and well keeping with tradition is always better than being, uh, I don't know, crazy and radical and demanding that human beings have a certain dignity and human functioning that deserves to be protected without discrimination. Even if they live in Africa. Or even if they have vaginas.
Crazy freakin liberals and their loopy notions about social progress and tolerance and respect and rights....
Everything is (or can be) better in theory! Feminism, activism, democracy, life…the list goes on. We all toss our pretty little ideas back and forth in hopes of being able to claim some form of truth as knowledge of our own. But I know the sad matter of the fact is that often these pretty little ideas we play with come from mid-air and seldom support themselves with proper reasoning (as demonstrated in some of the blogs posted this week). Which is why I am glad we did what we did in class this week.
Between something Becca blogged (the very beginning of her first) and something brought up in class on Thursday I see in our debates that…yes, everything is better in theory! We all know (or at least think we know) what would provide a better welfare and equality among us, as well as the methods of its execution. But look at what many of us do with our pretty little ideas: We save them for class and throw it in somebody’s face at the correlating time? Or wait until the blog to cover our expression with typing? But again no real actions….just theories.
In class we debated whether belief without action for equal rights was feminism or not, and it is in this that I found intrigue with the websites researched. I remember saying something about thought/belief being a step of feminism, for without it there is nothing bringing the movement together.
An illustration:
Let’s say Feminism (the idea) is literally calling you on the phone. You look at the caller ID and think it through, inevitably picking up the phone (demonstrating interest/belief). Now during the conversation Feminism beckons you to come out and play, or march, or whatever else Feminism likes to do. Now here is the tricky part. You can’t. Because of whatever, you simply can’t. But just because you didn’t go out to play, or march, or whatever, doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in Feminism or feel impelled by Feminism enough to answer the phone.
Now however elementary, that’s how I see it and I really liked how all of these websites in one way or another took their pretty little ideas to the next level/step and went outside to play with Feminism or simply did not answer the phone at all. For through these sites people are trying to make what is better in theory…real…by raising money, petitioning, and so on and so forth. All of which I have betrayed (as a wanna-be active feminist, but feminist all the same), by balling it all back up into pretty little ideas for this very blog.
erin jo mullen
First off, I missed last week’s post because I added this class late. Thus, just to let you know, I picked up this class in order to fulfill my minor in political science. I came into the class not really knowing what it would be about (besides the obvious title) but I am glad I did, because to be quite honest, I’ve never really thought/pondered about issues concerning women in politics, especially feminism. Sure, I was aware of the support and criticisms of such, but awareness is totally different than making an informed/educated opinion. While I’m being honest, I’ll also tell you that I was the one in class who marked “Yes ?” on our class survey on Thursday, only based on a) what I thought feminism is/was and b) what I had gathered from our online exercise on Tuesday. So yes, maybe I’m behind the times and all the concepts we discuss in class may be somewhat new to me, but I anticipate the end of the semester when I am educated on these issues and can be confident in my own informed opinion/viewpoint.
Anyway, I really enjoyed our class exercise last Tuesday – it was very eye-opening to me on how the feminist and conservative groups are similar and differ. Similar? Yes, similar in that both groups feel strongly about their viewpoints and have support/evidence to back up that view. Some will agree with one and disagree with the other; however, I feel that is another wonderful display of freedom in America. On a level geared more towards our specific website, I did find NOW and the CWA similar in that they listed “Six top priority issues.” These issues were also similar, including abortion/life. However, of course they differed in viewpoints.
I wasn’t really a big fan of “Rightgrrl” (despite the spelling of “grrl”) basically because it hadn’t been updated since 2004. Even though that’s only been three years ago, times are constantly changing and I’m sure there have been new scientific studies, improvements in politics, etc. that have occurred since then. For myself, in order to form my opinion, it can’t be solely based upon delayed information. I did appreciate both NOW and CWA for having such up-to-date/current articles.
I was, however, a big fan of the “Being Jane” website. Its clean and colorful design (sorry, that’s the graphics person in me) caught my attention first, but it was the site’s content that really got me thinking. “Being Jane” has more of an “empowerment for women” stance, in that empowering women doesn’t particularly mean a woman running for president but a woman doing something she hasn’t done before (i.e. applying for a promotion, trying something new, etc).
Overall, I really enjoyed this exercise and have already
re-visited these sites. Am I a feminist? Conservative? Shall I start my own group? Only time will tell…
I thought that NOW had a pretty sweet looking website. Although I'm not exactly the type that subscribes to all the views expressed by NOW, I can still appreciate a well organized website.
Being Jane also impressed me. I got a kick out of the forum posts that people had left. They get got pretty heated talking about women in the military. Being Jane...G.I. Jane, is there any connection? I'd say so. They definitely highlighted the difficulty women can have when they are in nontraditional roles. I think that is probably the real meat of what feminism is all about, or at least what I think it is about. It's not that women can't do things or are strictly forbidden from performing certain roles, it is the way society looks at them when they do these types of things. Being Jane offered women a resource to turn to when they face these struggles.
As for the conservative websites that I looked at, it certainly solidifies the fact that the right chooses some of the most rediculous people to lead their cause. Everything that is good about being conservative is tarnished by radical leaders with unreasonable standards of "morality" and unyielding disdain for the other side.
For instance language repeatedly found on CWA's website speaks of a fight or battle for the American Family. Battle? Fight? Someone saying a four letter word on network television, or a woman simply asking for the right to choose hardly seems like the type of actions that would constitute a fight for the American family.
I consider myself to be a fairly conservative person, but I also realize that quality of life means something. Sometimes it is simply better, for everyone involved if an abortion takes place, for that matter sometimes it is better to simply let someone die peacefully than to go plugging them into some machine to keep them alive in some hospital for a few more years.
I would like to address one final thing that has nothing to do with the websites but everything to do with what they talked about. I think the semen+vagine=baby formula is fairly evident, but what about the twelve year old girl who maybe doesn't understand this. Let's assume she's not raped, she is just ignorant of how it all works. Let's imagine for one moment that her parents and educational system has failed her, hard to fathom but it could happen. This girl gets pregnant from consensual sex. Should she be deprived of her teenage years simply because someone down the line forgot to tell her that hey, by the way.. semen+vagina=baby? I know adoption would be a viable option, but shouldn't abortion, a relatively safer medical procedure also be an option?
I agree totally with Molly, in the "F the Eagles" shirt. I personally do not find anything wrong with someone expressing their feelings. If the NFL however had to appologize then EKU needs to appologize to it's students because I had class with someone on tuesday that had a shirt on that said "F the police". Everyone in the class seemed to get a kick out of it. What really tickled me though was the fact that he was excited about wearing it over to Stratton. That takes guts!
Also I would just like to say that I really enjoyed the "Being Jane" website because it had some political information on there but it also had some stories from women who had been abused or just had a story to tell. You don't find that on alot of websites. I really found that to be awesome!
I thought the class exercise involving conservative and liberal feminist websites was very interesting. As expected, most of the websites showed a noticeable bias toward either the right or left wing. In any case it was interesting to see how the respective sides view current issues and occurrences. One of the things I found interesting, after going back and looking at the websites after President Bush’s State of the Union address was how each group responded to the message presented by the President.
The National Organization of Women, in analyzing Bush’s speech started off by at least acknowledging the Presidents statement that he was the first President to begin the State of the Union address with the phrase “Madam Speaker,” in reference to Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House. From there the article on NOW’s website trailed away from how women’s issues were addressed in the speech but later picked this discussion back up about three fourths the way through the article. One of the most interesting statements I found in the article was the writer’s statement, “The Bush administration policy makers apparently live in a fantasy world where every problem can be solved with another round of giveaways to big business, more tax cuts for the rich, or a war which, at lest in their rarified world is ‘good for the economy.’” With such claims made against the President and his conservative administration, the 110th Congress and its Democratic majority is going to be afforded the opportunity to put up or shut up. I think that it is completely within reason for people to be allowed to criticize our government and form opinions on what they are doing wrong. It now seems to be time for Democrats to add more support to their claim that the Bush administration lives in “fantasy world” by righting the wrongs they claim the Bush administration has committed. Another line of interest stated, “A feminist president would have talked about initiatives to help families balance work and care-giving, an expansion of reproductive health services, and a campaign to en violence against women and girls.” With the 2008 presidential election right around the corner, once again perhaps Liberals will be able to generate enough support for what they view as a feminist candidate and once again be afforded the opportunity to prove the validity of their claims.
One of the things that I liked about the Independent Women’s Forum sight was not only their claim to be non-partisan but also the support of this claim evident in the article entitled “The Pence Tax Increase.” On our class worksheet the site is listed as a Conservative site. Seeing as such I expected a very conservative tone when visiting the site. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find this article actually takes a stand against the position of some Republican congress-people. Furthermore, the article seemed to emphasize the fact that Republicans don’t necessarily agree on all issues, which is also much the same in the instance of Democrats. The article argues that Republican Congressman Mike Pence is inaccurate in suggesting President Bush disavow Social Security reform that includes a tax increase because he is ignoring — as are many otherwise sensible Republicans — that American taxpayers already face an enormous tax increase if Social Security continues unchanged. I also liked that this website had a link that further explored the political roles of women in Iraq. It was interesting to learn that women fulfilled the positions of Housing and Construction Minister, Environment Minister, Minister of the State of Women’s Affairs, and Human Right’s Minister within the new Iraqi government
The Concerned Women for America site, similar to the NOW site obviously leaned more in one political direction the other. One of the most interesting things I found on this site and out of all the sites we looked at was an article entitled “The Unborn Do Feel Pain.” The article talked about the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. The act proposes that mothers attempting to obtain an abortion be informed that unborn children past the 20th week of fertilization feel intense and tortuous pain when undergoing abortion. Dr. Glen Wright, the Professor and Chair of Pediatrics of Mercer University School of Medicine testified to this premise before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee. The President of the pro-abortion group NARAC Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan announced that her group would not oppose the bill on the basis that women should have this information before committing to an abortion. The agreement between the two parties on this bill serves to recognize that both pro-life and pro-choice groups at the very least agree that education is key for women if the choice to abort remains available to the public.
The feminist.org site had an interesting link to a “Title IX Check List” outlining what exactly would call for a violation of Title IX and what procedures one could follow to bring suit against an educational institution for violating Title IX. On the check list of what constituted a violation one of the things mentioned was that the male to female ration was grossly one sided in either direction. The site identified a violation as having 70% of the student population composed of one sex exclusively. This got me thinking about how just walking around Eastern’s campus a larger portion of the student population seemed to be female. After a little research on EKU’s website I discovered that we can all rest easy knowing that concerning this particular standard, Eastern is not in violation of Title IX. Never the less, the male to female ratio does favor the female sex with about 60% of students identified as female and 40% male.
This exercise simply proved that “feminist” is actually a very broad term that involves advocates for women’s rights who take a variety of stances on women’s issues. In a perfect world there would be one group that supported the advancement of women in politics and did not concern itself with the conservative and liberal stances a woman takes on a certain issue. However, we do not live in a perfect world and it would unfair to ask a woman to put aside her personal views just to support a candidate because she was a woman. In the same way that all men do not affiliate with one party or issue, women likewise do not conform to one set of beliefs.
Kristeena Winkler
After visiting all of the websites I walked away concerned. Both sides of these interest groups were radical and seemed to have a negative feel to them. But since I conceder myself to be a liberal I felt more of a connection to the NOW website. Through the radical fog of getting their point across, I found that the website produced more beneficial information about women and politics and ways of getting involved.
After visiting the CWFA website I felt sick and appalled that people have such primitive ways of logic. This website preaches of gender equality, but what about equality for ALL people including Homosexuals????? There were so many articles depicting the horrible ways in which gays and lesbians are disrupting the moral fiber of America, but isn’t America about freedom of choice? Since when is love a bad thing? If you want to talk about disrupting the moral fabric, what about these gun toting, fundamentalist who preach hate toward American citizens just because they don’t have the same view of God and Love? Then turn around and say that we don’t need Hate Crime Laws. I am not a homosexual, but I don’t go around and try to change anyone.. It’s about tolerance and seeing people for who they are on the inside. Love is Love.
Another quote from this website that I found ridiculous was the point they tried to make against the morning after pill. “A women who might want to get pregnant could become the victim of a man who doesn’t want her to have a child.” …. are you kidding me?? Shouldn’t the decision be between the man AND the women? Just a thought.
On a couple other conservative websites I found articles that bash Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton. Women everywhere should be rejoicing the fact that these two women are in a position of power within this lop sided government. But I guess if I found my liberties and the law making decisions in the hands of a Republican I would be scared too… Oh wait, it already is, and look at the situations we are in, and take into account how the rest of the word views the US. Majority rules, right??
Marketta Ray
This comparative look at the various feminist interest groups was a testament to one of the themes we touched on in class on Thursday: women are not a monolithic bloc. As such, it is to be expected that these women, and men for that matter (did anyone else notice that the director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America was a man?), united under the banner of feminism and a common goal of female equality, will have a wide variety of opinions on every socio-economic and political issue imaginable, some of which seem to me to have a rather minimal connection to the feminist movement itself.
One of the best examples I saw of this difference of opinion was the debate over the inequity in wages between men and women. This statistic that women as a whole earn less than men is rather well known and used by some feminist organizations as a rallying point for their calls for reform. On the Independent Women’s Forum website, however, there are several articles written in the last few years that attempt to debunk this idea, citing the use of misleading statistics and explaining the circumstances away as the result of lifestyle choices and free market influences in the workforce. For any other issue of importance in today’s society (social security reform, the war in Iraq, homosexual marriage), there was just as much variance in opinion from one website to the next.
After having visited these websites, one of my primary concerns is that these websites, at least at face value, left very little room for those that don’t have a uniform liberal or conservative viewpoint. Each organization, NOW and CWFA in particular, seems to promote a rather extreme agenda that is currently beleaguered by narrow-minded hate-mongers and those who threaten to destroy the biblical values that underlie the moral fabric of America respectively. It’s enough to make me wonder if either group stops much to think that the other side just might have a point on a few ideas.
I think that Politics of Sex could not have been offered at a more appropriate time in our nation's history. The presidential election of 2008 is quickly heating up. As this year moves on I think the entire country (At least everyone that even casually follows politics)will become exponentially more informed and aware of the role that gender plays in American politics. The conservative and liberal feminist interest groups will be more active and vocal than anytime in the past three-quarters of a century.
Tuesday's in-class research on women's interest groups offered a side previously unknown to me. I was not aware that conservative womens groups were so prevalant. I was aware of the role that liberal groups such as N.O.W. played, but I had no ideal that conservatives offered an adversarial perspective. I strongly believe that womens interest groups are needed to further the rights of women. However, I feel that the liberal ones are too far left and the conservatives are a bit too far right.
I feel that women today enjoy unprecedented political and social opportunity. Someone in class said that N.O.W. was extremely conservative, and I think it surely must have been a type-o. I think N.O.W. could do a lot more to emphasize the leaps and bounds that women have made politically. They seem to only illustrate what is wrong, and it their ideals are often way to radical for me. On the flip side the conservative groups seem to be working to reverse some of the progress in women's rights.
I personally believe that more has been done to "liberate" the American woman, than remains to be done. Women today enjoy political opportunity that is nearly comparable to that of men.
Someone from class also said the Hillary Clinton is not a candidate that can advance the feminist agenda. I feel that any female candidate, especially one considered to be a front-runner in the primaries, would be beneficial to women everywhere. This is the first time in history that a woman had a legitimate shot at the presedency. Dr. Patton showed us a newspaper article last semester about a Jerry Fallwell comment. Fallwell said that Hillary Clinton should be a welcomed candidate for the religious right. He said that Lucifer himself could not mobilize the christian vote like Clinton could. For femenists sake, I hope that he is wrong. As we learned last semester in Politics and Religion the religious vote is a formidable one.
So this is why you are supposed to post ahead of time. Inevitably, your internet will die when you are in dire need.
I thought this assignment was fascinating, and really opened my ideas to the entire feminism movement and what it is all about. As Amber pointed out, it does sort of hurt women to be “feminist” rather than “humanist.” Although many feminists (myself included) often qualify later that they do indeed support the rights of all people, it is a common misconception that feminists believe that men should pretty much be used only for breeding purposes (and only when artificial insemination fails) and women should rule the world. Not that I think women shouldn’t rule the world (we could, and probably would do an awesome job) but it is important to point out that people everywhere should enjoy the same rights, privileges, and freedoms that your average WASP does.
And many people argue that people everywhere DO enjoy these rights; that women and men alike are released from their historical stereotypes and are free to do as they please. But try this: be a girl and walk down the street. Listen for the ensuing cat calls and horns honking. It pretty much starts from the age of 13 (fair game, you know) until who knows when! If that isn’t sexual objectification of women, what is? Also try this: wash dishes around men. Inevitably they will joke about woman being evolutionarily designed for dishwashing. And although that woman may laugh, a little bit of her soul dies at each derogatory comment (no matter if it was given in jest.)
And finally, try this: Be a woman and run for office (this is POLITICS of sex after all.) You say that a woman can be president. Well, why hasn’t there been a female president? Why hasn’t there been a president that wasn’t white? Why has there only been ONE president to be something other than protestant (and he was catholic, so risqué!)
But I digress.
The assignment to look at these sites showed me that both sides of the feminist movement are partially responsible for the lack of progress in this arena. Both the liberal and conservative sites were so negative, that I would be slightly embarrassed to associate myself with either side. The liberals were vicious in their attacks on conservatives; conservatives made completely irrational claims about everything (know your cycle girls, it will keep you from getting pregnant (even though the rhythm method has been used for ages, and it certainly didn’t work then, so odds are it won’t work now!).) Both made me feel depressed about the state of women in the world: one because it alienated itself from the rest of society, the other because it was just silly.
I did find hope in sites like Being Jane, which I think should become the dominant paradigm for feminism. It promoted true appreciation for women, without as much politics. Although I believe politics to be very important, I think it is jumping the gun a bit to mix politics and feminism so soon. Let society stew for a while, recognize feminism for the truth that it is, and then implement laws and statutes that support this new-found way of thinking. Trying to force feminism in to law without the rational support from society risks bringing the entire movement to a grinding halt.
This is now double the required length. Hopefully it will cushion the blow of it being an hour late. I think I’ll stop for a while.
Sarah Cooper <--- AND I remembered my name! Yay for me!
Can I also say that I find the semen + vaginal = baby conversation highly amusing? I think it ironic that a man would say that in a class about feminism, and it kind of proves a point. Women tend to get saddled with the responsibility of children, no matter the situation.
I have a friend with a brand new baby, and her husband is unhappy and says he never wanted a baby, and that he's not ready for it. Well, neither was she (and she was on birth control, so perhaps the equation should be rewritten semen+vagina+birthcontrol still= baby.)
However, her husband fails to see this and thinks that his not wanting a kid at that time is carte blanche to do whatever he wants, yet she is tied to caring for the baby (although she felt the same way.)
So things are never as cut-and-dry as they seem, pregnancy being one of those things, and feminism in general especially. It is very importan to analyze the situation entirely before formulating opinions, something that is rarely done.
When one envisions a feminist website, I would think NOW is what would come to mind. They are very engaged in politics and issues that affect women, are pro-choice, and very much in favor of the independent female. It was positive to see them favoring a better self image for women, in their Love Your Body campaign.
CWA is an interest group I cannot really align with. Their headline is to "Protect Our Moral Values", and they obviously embrace the image of a woman caring for her family. It is entirely possible to be a homemaker and mother and be a feminist, so I applaud that effort to promote the familial structure. But this website was also very pro-active, with a negative feel to it. And I did not really see anything that would promote a woman's place in the world.
The other conservative group I visited was Rightgrrl. Abortion was the prominent issue on this pro-life webpage. And some of the links to articles were very extreme. They contend the founders of feminism were pro-life, giving quotes "Guilty? Yes. No matter the motive, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed"- Susan B. Anthony. That is fine, but I don't know how something like this could change someone's mind given this was about 100 years ago. Very much devoted to taking a pro-life stance and making it as extreme as possible (remember their birth control method we discussed in class?) They also had a headline about anti-war leftists, so right away I got a negative feel and thought to myself, "oh, Lordisa" (that's a feminist take on Lord).
Being Jane was the other feminist group I saw. Right away I loved this site, because they wanted to redefine feminism to symbolize women coming together, which I think is important and positive! It deals more with employment and issues at home, as opposed to being so political. I loved their message, because I think it is important for all women, no matter their stance on abortion, birth control, stem cell research, etc. come together to demand equal rights, how could someone NOT love the idea of progression? How exactly would Being Jane redefine feminism? "Symbolize women working together, to be who they want to be and do what they want to do, with self assurance and passion." That, for me, was the most positive thing I read on all the websites.
And, regarding this "semen in vagina" discussion....for Benjamin, or whoever else may infer that it is solely the woman's responsibility, if it is 100% the woman who is responsible, shouldn't it be 100% her choice?
-Ashley Farmer
p.s. I know this is late, I'm sorry! I totally forgot! (what a bad excuse, but it's true).
Post a Comment