OK, let me weigh in like the rest of the blogging world about the theory of Feminism and the train wreck it is experiencing. If you haven’t been paying attention, please go to Google and type in Palin or Clinton and Feminism. But do it after you read this post please… you’ll never come back. You’ll be reading forever. There are a lot of articles to read and some are just great and some really aren’t. Some will make your blood boil (regardless of where you stand) but have no substance. Some have huge benefit to the discussion but aren’t very compelling… You’ll either ***YAWN*** or go ***HUH?***.
Feminism (that is feminine theory purported by some organizations) has always bewildered me. At some point in a discussion or debate with someone, regardless of the direction or topic within Feminism, I lock up because I realize that we (the debater and I) are talking about different things. It was only recently that I realized that Feminism is not about females being treated equal as females. Did you hear me? That is NOT what it is about! More specifically, it is not about bringing womanhood to social equality. Maybe it was at some point, but it isn’t any more. Don’t believe the hype or the rhetoric. So what is it about? Brace yourself:
It is a theory that, summed up, states that men should not be masculine, women should be masculine.
(There, I’ve said it… er, written it. Go tell your friends. The confusion is over. Be good to one another. Glad I could help.)
Feminism, as the current theory is promoted, is about which sex should be the masculine sex. (Eventually, in order to make the discussion of masculinity entirely open to both sexes, well have to abandon the term masculine and its derivatives… but that is not what I am trying to write about here…. I am already too long on words for a rant.) At one point, feminism was (basically) the theory that being a woman did exclude a person from voting, working, learning, exercising. Equal pay for equal work. CoEd enrollement. Sufferage rights. Title IX (maybe not title IX, I haven’t done the research on that one…).
So what does any of this have to do with Govenor Palin and Senator Clinton? The article that my wife is blogging about states it somewhat. But let me say it a little differently. Governor Palin is a woman and she acts like a woman and she embraces being a woman. You can’t get around it. (At first I was appalled at how many times I heard about her looks and her children! This is the VP spot for cryin’ out loud! Get over the face and figure and get those rug rats of to boarding school already!) Senator Clinton on the other hand… have you seen her in a dress or skirt… ever? Has she mentioned her affections for her family in a “I love my husband, I think he’s great!” kind of way? “My child is my world!” How about, “I love being a mom?” Sen. Clinton, was the pioneer (really?… sorry, let’s save that for another rant) in politics and she did it by going toe to toe with the men on their terms. Just like those male ogres would have. OORAH! Palin on the other hand mentioned lipstick IN HERE ACCEPTANCE SPEECH as Sen. McCains running mate! Her debut speech to America! HELLO!!! Basically, Palin is saying, “It is good to be a woman.” And not just by mentioning lipstick, but by lifestyle. And here lifestyle states something further, “It is good to be a woman, and take responsibility for your womanhood.”
So again, what are Feminists supposed to do? Say Gov. Palin is being too feminine? Quit thinking about your kids, Gov. Palin. Quit with the good looking hair? Take some testoserone sups? Some have started down this path, but they couldn’t go to far because they realized they would eventually offend women everywhere. Even if women don’t like being women, they’d get offended. Why, because most women want to succeed and still be women!
But the bottom line is this (and it would take more blogging to unpack this statement but I am out of time for today):
Feminists believe you can’t succeed in life if you act like a woman and take responsibility for being a woman!
Feminists believe you can’t be fulfilled in life if you act like a woman and take responsibility for being a woman!
Feminists believe you can only succeed and feel fulfilled if you have, as a right, the ability to behave in the same manner as a male acts when he is irresponsible, overbearing and boorish.
But Palin has succeed and exudes fulfillment while being feminine, not masculine.
Train wreck.
Comments 4
I think you are demonizing feminism here. You are making some pretty black and white blanket statements about what feminism is (intentionally exaggerated to emphasize your point, I think) when in reality modern feminism is pretty broad. I think a lot of people who consider themselves feminists would vehemently disagree with your definition.
One of the things I find troubling about American Politics is the extra layer of baggage we have put on female candidates because they are women. There appears to be a greater emphasis on appearance and other extrinsic factors that really bear little weight in a candidate’s ability to lead.
Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 17:13 ¶Todd,
Good to hear from you old friend.
Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 22:57 ¶I am exaggerating to make a point, true. I know that not all feminists fit into what I’ve described. Extrinsic factors is only part of what I am talking about. In fact, I may actually agree with your point. Being feminine (and I mean, maternal, concerned with looks, wearing a skirt, and believing abortion is wrong) WITH the ability to lead is wrecking the picture of Feminism as pushed in colleges and in the popular media.
Ooh, I want a cool cartoon avatar.
Wow. Now you are implying that being maternal, concerned with looks, wearing a skirt, and believing abortion is wrong are all key qualities of femininity. I have met many women who were very feminine and yet were missing several and in some cases all of the above mentioned qualities.
The article you and Debbie are railing against is about the author’s frustration at seeing the Republican party switch from attacking Hilary Clinton on frequently sexist grounds to raising Sarah Palin as a potential leader on similarly sexist grounds.
While I don’t agree with all of her politics, I completely agree with her viewpoint.
Ultimately we are looking for leadership in the presidential and vice presidential roles. Shouldn’t we as the American people be looking beyond appearance, perceived femininity (or lack thereof), and other extrinsic factors (like a vagina and breasts, or heaven forbid, a penis) to a person’s fitness for leadership. Are we really that shallow?
Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 14:04 ¶Todd,
Check out gravatar.com. If you sign up and upload a picture, the avatar shows up. It is linked to the e-mail address you provide.
Look, I am very new to the arena of discussing ideas. So forgive me if I stub my toe or get convoluted. Let me back up and state EMPHATICALLY that I am not trying to lump all feminists (i.e. people) into what I am arguing. I am talking about a thread of Feminist Theory. However, even if many feminist vehemently disagree with me that doesn’t make me wrong and them right. In fact, I know many feminists would disagree with me, but that doesn’t make me wrong.
Also, the article starts off with the writers confession of her feelings of crisis concerning her understanding of feminism when juxtaposed with the persona and mindset of Palin. I am not railing against the article, I am using the article as proof. (By the way, the article makes Palin out to be a sort of temptress, using beauty to disable or gain the support of the entrenched male dominion… which is an unfounded accusation).
Now, the little trick you did with the “Wow. Now you are implying that being maternal, concerned with looks, wearing a skirt, and believing abortion is wrong are all key qualities of femininity.” helps me understand that you are in earnest and that I should be more careful with my words. So hopefully, I can clarify what I am trying to say now. The point I am trying to make is that Palin has already proven herself to be a leader. She runs the state of Alaska. Yet she isn’t dumping traditional nor stereotypical feminine qualities, as if they were a burden and hamper her potential. I am not saying that the aforementioned list are “key” qualities of femininity. Also, you reject my list of feminist attributes without putting forth you own definition or list. So in the end, I am not sure what idea of femininity we are discussing.
I reject your last paragraph, Todd. I never said anything about extrinsic factors being an indicator of qualified leadership. Please don’t pin that on me. In fact I am saying that Palin is a qualified leader, and her extrinsic factors are causing a crisis when juxtaposed with the particular Feminist Theory I am talking about, because her extrinsic factors don’t mesh with that understanding of qualified female leadership.
I hope that clears things up, and I hope this comment wasn’t too long… and boring… err, dull.
Posted 10 Oct 2008 at 01:20 ¶Post a Comment