Feminisim is More than a Punchline; Some Simple Rules to Remember

Having slogged through fall out over Pie Ad and the abortion posts preceding it, I feel compelled to post the following

At it's core, feminism stands for the radical notion that women are people too. That means women should get paid the same for equal work, have sex only when and with whom they want, and enjoy the right to fully participate in the political process.

Although we have made tremendous progress in the US and Western Europe, it's an outright lie to claim full equality exists. One need only talk to women working low wage jobs in the service industry, immigrants who lack full English skills, or women in the trades who first integrate a construction site to find out what sexual harassment (degredation) means. Or perhaps one could spend time with teenage girls who are bombarded with positive sexual messages but denied access to birth control or abortion.

Nor can we forget the plight of women in the developing world, where mass rapes are an accepted tactic in war. (Nor should we ignore our own service women who apparently face a similar gauntlet at the hands of their fellow soldiers.)

Can Markos run his ad or defend his support of anti-choice politicians? Sure, it's his site.

But since he welcomes community, he must deal with the responses he receives. That includes further reaming him when he equates complaints about the ad to folks like Dobson, who only want to see ALL women placed in that position (until they have birthed the requisite five children and attain Madonna status).

Now I have met Markos, I like him, and I know he is not a misogynist. Thus I won't call him a "clueless frat boy." But I also know he is a passionate advocate who refuses to back down (even when he is wrong).

What I'm asking is that folks - including Markos - remember that its core feminism stands for everyone's universal, personal freedom. That's why the Right hates it so much.

In other words, It's not a euphamism for humorless man-hating lesbians seeking to castrate every member of male species.(Further disclosure, I'm a lesbian with a wicked sense of humor and a fair number of male friends. Moreover, I generally can contain my castration desire until I see something really stupid like Markos follow up response or my first cup of caffeine tea. :>)

Pax

•  Great

       diary !

  by David Boyle on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:12:42 PM PDT

•  Dobson

  But at least from what I've read, while the reasonings are different between anti-pie and Dobson forces, the end results of censorship are the same.

  by voltayre on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:23:25 PM PDT

  •  Ding ding ding ding

    We have a winner!

    by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:30:28 PM PDT

  •  Reasoning isn't all that different...

    ...I mean "it offends me that women are presented behaving differently than I think society should see them behaving and I want it to stop" is pretty much the outline of both views.

    Oh, sure, the difference in why the person thinks women should be portrayed differently is there, but the broad outline is the same.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:35:58 PM PDT

  •  Your comparison doesn't fly

    There's a huge difference between a group that promotes hate speech, attempts to deprive people of their civil rights under the Constitution, and/or seeks to impose their particular religion on a nation ... and people expressing their opinions on an offensive ad.

    You might think it's sanctimonious for women to object to a gratuitous big-boobed catfight ad as being degrading to women. You might think black people are too sensitive if they object to portraits of black people as lazy shuffling step'n'fetchits or gays depicted in a degrading way. Whatever ... presumably, you'd get a response.

    That wouldn't be just like what Dobson's doing, however. Expressing a view that the pie ad was sexist (dumb, degrading, etc.) isn't taking away anyone's rights or freedom to disagree or yours to respond.

    If KOS doesn't want to run the ad for whatever reason, that's certainly his prerogative. But KOS is also hoping to establish a progressive community here, and by extension his own credibility as a spokesman, writer, researcher, etc. (and good wishes towards that.) Being associated with sexist, racist or homophobic ads would work against those intentions.

    No one shut down his right to run the ads. (Jeez, what century are we in?)

    by Peanut on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:10:19 PM PDT

  •  proclaiming yourself an anarchist

    I am sure that you would also have no problem with an add representing Jews as big nosed money grubbers and theives or an add showing black men as lazy and unable to speak clearly.
    What is sad is that so many people will read what you say about censorship and agree with you, because they aren't smart enough to put two and two together. I doubt that many of those agreeing with you on this issue would be so comfortable with the adds I have mentioned above.

    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:45:44 PM PDT

    •  consensus and hypocracy

      Was there a master consensus about the Pie Ad among women on the site? or even all persons?  Its a moral debate and its a gray area, whereas...

      your examples are easily discerned to be racist and universally condemnable.  And what I ask myself is

      1) is the end result of this line of thinking that the Pie Ad is "bad" that:
        a) I should not enjoy such entertainment as a male
        b) such entertainment, since its "bad," should cease to exist.
        c) burkas?
      2) does this view of exploitation extend to images of male sexuality since one of the stated criteria is "equality." Or, when presented with an image targeted to the female demographic, will such calls disappear?

      by voltayre on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:27:37 PM PDT

•  The godmother

  I posted this earlier as it relates to the "women's studies" snarkiness:

  When asked whether women's studies were still needed, Dr. Lerner laughed. "For 4,000 years, men have defined culture by looking at the activities of other men," she said, putting on her professorial voice. "The minute we started questioning it, the first question was, 'Well, when are you going to stop separating yourself out and mainstream?'"

  "Give us another 4,000 years," she said, "and we'll talk about mainstreaming."

  (In May 2002, Dr. Lerner became the first woman to receive the Bruce Catton Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Historical Writing from the Society of American Historians.)

  by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

•  Keep on....

  No "shut up with the pie comments on the pie diaries" until people feel like they have had their opportunity to get at what it is that is so misunderstood.

  I don't mind the pie ad.  I see why others do and have profound respect for their reasons for taking offense.  That's what's missing.  The profound respect that would dismiss women or anyone influenced by "women's studies" and have their voices trounced by all the "Oh C'mon, big deal, yawn" responses.

  by Cathy on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:27:54 PM PDT

•  Yes.

  I agree with what you say, but I still can't figure out one thing: how did the pie hoopla advance the cause of feminism?

  If feminism stands for everyone's universal, personal freedom, what about the freedom of the women involved in the ad to make it?

  I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I honestly don't get it.
  

  by Frank on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:28:45 PM PDT

  •  Because

    on the right or left, there are some people who only believe in personal freedom insofar as it doesn't contradict anything they dislike.  

    Then, also, personal freedom does cover the freedom for those involved to make the ad.  And it also covers the freedom of those who don't like it to tell us why not, even in very heated terms.  And the freedom to speak of all those who step in and call the naysayers impolite names and question their need to be medicated, rude as that might be.  And so forth and so on.

    The best freedom, in my opinion?  The freedom to pay it exactly as much attention as it deserves.

    by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:34:39 PM PDT

    •  How do you propose

      legislating or even creating change to cut down on degradation of women?

      What would you do?

      by Bensch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:36:56 PM PDT

      •  To cut down on

        degredation of women, what we need to change is attitudes, before laws.  For example, porn can be made that respects women's sexuality.  Porn can be made that doesn't.  The attitude towards women that goes into its creation is, IMO, the defining factor.

        As far as legislating...passing the ERA would work for me.

        Beyond that, I would like to hear specifically what examples of degredation of women concern you before I'd offer up legislative ideas.  I'm wary of creating laws to control things that really can't be controlled legally.

        by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:44:14 PM PDT

        •  Changing attitudes is everything

          I've read some of the stuff that went on here this weekend.

          As a feminist from the early 1970's and working in the culture of the intermountain states the attitudes were and are atrocious. The attitudes must be changed through education not legislation.

          All the legislation in the world will not change things - and all of the ranting and raving that has occurred on DailyKos this weekend will not do anything except add to the infighting.

          Until there is no respectful discussion amongst the progressives on this site, there will be no respect among those we are trying to change.
           

          by MtnCerridwen on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:58:47 PM PDT

          •  I do actually see

            some reasonable and important discussion going on, which makes me happy.  Not everyone who needs to is going to learn something from the pie wars, but I think a few people will.

            It's largely buried by flame wars and juvenile dismissive or "sanctimonious" comments, but it's there in the threads and side- and response-diaries.

            Some people really do want to be educated and learn about issues that haven't personally affected them.  

            And some people just want to see tits.  

            And those categories aren't mutually exclusive.

            by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:05:31 PM PDT

            •  Asdf

              OK, so I just saw the ad for the first time.  Not as in watched it, but saw the still picture that links to it.

              My goodness, those are some large artificially-enhanced ta-tas.  

              by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:08:26 PM PDT

          •  Who knew?

            I wouldn't have guessed that that the ad or the program it advertises were produced in the "intermountain states."  Glad to know attitudes in NY and CA are so much better than everything would lead one to believe.

            by MarkDQ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:07:12 PM PDT

        •  That's the thing.

          I don't think we can legislate any of it. I'm not sure how it can be done, except through education - and considering how many of my grade school teachers self-identified as feminists, I'm surprised it wasn't brought up more.

          I'm concerned about advertising - have you seen American Apparel? They use US labor to make clothes, and have apparently very good worker treatment - they even have an organic line - but they have the same super-skinny models posing in "mount me" positions in their ads. Since the trend is for more sexuality, what needs to be done to keep girls from feeling totally inadequate?

          I'm not sure that we can change the trend. I honestly think more openness about sexuality could help here, but I'm not a psychologist. Men in advertisements tend to be those in the best physical condition - but the women in ads tend to be sickly.

          I'm also concerned about equal pay issues, but I'd like to see some studies to answer real questions - everything's polarized and it's hard to get relative answers.

          I'm very wary of creating new laws.

          by Bensch on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

      •  Legislation is critical; we can't wait for

        attitudes to change. We maintain Roe v. Wade, for starters.

        Also, I read first on Dennis Kucinich's website, then other places, about a proposal to radically change the way we address domestic violence.

        Currently, when a man is abusing a woman--and, please, let's not get side tracked by the tiny percentage of woman on man abuse--the woman and her children must hide like fugitives in shelters, while the man, though possibly constrained by court order, is free to roam the country, and, not to be a drama queen, all too often this includes stalking, terrorizing and/or killing the woman and/or children.

        Kucinich would adopt a program in force in Finland where, rather than the woman escaping her abuser, the abuser would be removed to a home-based Batterers Intervention Program, where he would receive treatment and an escort to and from work. (BIPs are the only programs shown to enable families to reconcile after domestic violence.) Currently we shelter women and counsel them oxymoronically about how this isn't their fault, but also how not to let it happen again.

        Can you imagine the message this change would send to women? The most obvious is, We believe you married a man who loves you. We believe you want to maintain your family and we want to help you do that. We believe he's hurting you and your family and we're going to do the only thing that's been shown to work, get into batterers' treatment, now.

        As opposed to the present position of, You're crazy to be married to this guy in the first place, and you're mostly on your own in your quest to escape him. How did you let this happen in the first place? Next time you'll know better.

        Some pretty serious legislative and judicial upheavals would be necessary to make abusers immediately responsible for their actions and promote treatment, and I'm not sure it will ever happen in this country, but that it works anywhere at all is cause for at least a look.

        I hope to write my cyber-hymen breaking diary about this after some research, and would be glad to know beforehand if others know about these programs.

        Other examples of the legislation-first, attitudes-second rule include abolition, abortion and civil rights.

        by leolabeth on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 03:15:09 PM PDT

  •  not that difficult

    they have a right to make any stupid add they want.  What does that have to do with it being offensive?
    Do they also have a right to make sure that it is seen on any particular website?
    They can make it, that doesn't mean anyone else should be forced to see it.
    

    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:35:49 PM PDT

•  On feminism and the 'important shit'

  When I was in my early 20s, I worked for a progressive press agency in Guatemala. I admired the Guatemalan journalists (male and female) who wrote insightful, daring critiques during some of the worst years of military rule.

  A few of these male journalists used to pin up photos of naked women on the wall near where we had our weekly meetings. I didn't take it too seriously at the time--once I even bought a copy of Playgirl and put up some pictures of naked men alongside the other photos as a joke. I thought, hey, this is nothing compared to the important shit of combating military impunity. I didn't want to appear too 'feminist.'

  Well, it's 20 years later, and I've learned a few things (yes, in life as well as in graduate school, although not in 'women studies' seminars per se...). I've learned that:

  1. It's easy to espouse progressive politics until your own interests are challenged.

  2. Discrimination and actions that demean other people are the important shit.

  3. Feminism is not about hating men, hating sexual images, being extreme or sanctimonious, or any of the other cliches. It's about understanding how gender roles and identities are socially produced and how this production of gender is related to the perpetration of other sorts of power relations.

  In response to Markos' juvenile response this morning, I can only say that maybe when he, too, has matured in another couple of decades, he (and others who echo his immaturity) will recognize that this is the important shit.

  by eoglesby on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:42:04 PM PDT

  •  Applause

    I cannot improve upon what you said.  Your point #3 is something every reader here should have tattooed upon their eyelids.

    It does sadden me that our host Markos can be so cavalier about womens' issues, but since he's even younger than I am, perhaps I ought not to be surprised.  If he can lampoon "the women's studies set" with only some pushback, this is clearly not the place for me any longer.

    There's a lot of value in this website.  But all it takes are a few more front page posts showing such utter cluelessness, a few more unapologetic "gutless bitches" posts by our host, and the demeanor here can change for the worse.

    I've been shocked to hear this recently from several of my activist friends: "Kos isn't a progressive blog anymore, I don't bother with it."  I have always understood the core thesis of partisanship over principles here, and generally agreed with it and found good progressive talk here regardless.  I don't know if this place is being crushed under its own weight, or simply subverted by other interests as my friends seem to think, or what.

    Notice I didn't mention pie.  I still don't know what that whole thing was about, I'm objecting to the mysogyny evident elsewhere.

    GBCW?  Yeah.  Too lazy to diary it.

    by ubikkibu on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:53:02 PM PDT

    •  If you or any here

      are looking for a place to discuss women's issues and politics, come visit your sisters at:

       Women kossacks

      Alive and thriving without the SYFPH remarks

      by shirlstars on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

    •  BS charges of emotionalism to deflect criticism

      You're shrill.
      You're humorless.
      You're angry.
      You're jealous.
      You're paranoid.
      You want to drag people down.
      You see conspiracy theories everywhere.
      You just hate [insert self-flattering portrait] because [insert $0.10 psychobabble].

      Have you or your sistren and brethren been hearing these charges routinely? Congratulations: you have been deemed enough of a threat by the person(s) you're challenging that they hope to make you go away -- or deter others from listening to what you have to say -- by attributing these qualities and hoping they stick.

      Of course, shrill, angry, humorless, paranoid, jealous, draggy, hateful conspiracy theorists actually do exist in the world. However, it's not nearly with the regularity that the PTB's would have us believe.

      Historically, it's been that pesky gang that cultural conservatives shoved under the convenient burka-term of "politically correct" so "regular people" could have a whack at them and make them just, you know, go the hell away: feminists, ethnic groups, gays, environmental groups, non-hardline Christian religions ... hey, detecting a leftish liberal kind of theme here.

      Fast forward to two terms of Bush.

      by Peanut on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:55:51 PM PDT

    •  You're abusing ratings

      Why did you trollrate me on another thread?

      Could it be you're trying to shut up everyone whose opinions differ from your own?

      Doesn't leave you a whole lot of room to complain about Kos, you know. But it's quick and it's dirty.

      by cookiebear on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:15:09 PM PDT

•  Thank you for a . . .

  well-written, well-reasoned and succinct diary.  I guess part of the solution is to make sure our sons respect women and to teach our daughters to be strong and respect themselves.  

  by Powered Grace on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:59:23 PM PDT

•  feminism stands for everyone's personal freedom

  Does feminism include the freedom to make a living by having pie fights in skimpy clothes?
  

  by Kaleja on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:03:15 PM PDT

  •  My opinion?

    Yes, definitely.  

    That's not to ignore the fact that some women go into sex work (not saying the ad is that, just making a point) due to childhood abuse and/or lack of education and job skills, and that sex work is inherently more dangerous than other fields given the risk of violence and STI's.  

    My point is, I don't believe in censoring things, but I don't think we can be entirely lassiez-faire about it, either.  If we consider the reasons some women do demeaning things, and make it so women who don't want to don't have to, we open up the field and insulate it from criticism for women who truly want to pie-fight half-naked.

    by KB on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:57 PM PDT

  •  they have a right to make the add

    they don't have any "right" to expect to make a living from it.  They don't have the right to expect  others will see it or not object to it.

    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:52:07 PM PDT

•  I've read a number

  of these pie fight diaries and threads. I've learned a lot of stuff about everybody's views over the weekend. But the question I haven't seen answered by the dKos community is...

  Ginger or Mary Ann?

  by The Gryffin on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:23:18 PM PDT