Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Sunstone]

Feminists only push for equality when they're the ones to benifit from it.

One of the historical critiques of the Feminist movement has been that feminists tend to try to support many other people's causes rather than push a more narrow agenda of their own.

 

[Willamena]

Try? Obviously not very successfully, as my previous example illistraights. I note you did not care to provide an example yourself. Also, we're on the 3rd wave now, not the 2nd.

What characterizes the 3rd wave?

 

[Nanda]

Try? Obviously not very successfully, as my previous example illistraights.

Your post illustrates something, but not what is actually going on:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/e...9efba2e9595dec&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It is not that men are in a downward spiral: they are going to college in greater numbers and are more likely to graduate than two decades ago...
...The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better," said Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington.

I note you did not care to provide an example yourself.

Same sex marriage.

Also, we're on the 3rd wave now, not the 2nd.

D'oh! That's what I meant, actually. Sorry, I'm having a really slow morning.

 

[Papersock]

Feminists only push for equality when they're the ones to benifit from it.

What about male feminists?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What about male feminists?

In it for the tail.

 

[Nanda]

What characterizes the 3rd wave?

I had meant third wave, and not second in my earlier post. Third wave tries to incorporate the people and issues that the second wave ignored, such as GLBT, Minorities, the poor and marginalized, etc.

Third Wave Feminism - Understanding Third Wave Feminism - About.com

 

[Papersock]

In it for the tail.

What about gay male feminists?

 

[Mr Cheese]

archive - Karras: The Third Wave's Final Girl

The third wave is often thought to have been initiated by the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 when, as Naomi Wolf, the third wave's version of Gloria Steinem in terms of her looks and mass media appeal, explains, the "genderquake" began, referring to the

abrupt shift in the balance of power between US women and men initiated by the Supreme Court confirmation hearings and the unprecedented feminist political action they brought about ... something critical to the sustenance of patriarchy died in the confrontation and something new was born. (xxv; 5)
​

Wolf argues that the two years following the court hearings were rocked by unprecedented struggles over gender issues, including the William Kennedy Smith and Mike Tyson rape trials. In 1992, more women ran for office and came forward with sexual harassment charges against men running for office, Bill Clinton was elected, and the cult of Hillary began. Deborah Siegel, a feminist who has written extensively about the third wave, also sees this time as fundamental to the development of the third wave, noting that the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Rodney King beating, and the passage of anti-abortion legislation in some states resulted in a political coming of age and a "remarkable resurgence of grassroots student activism, young feminist conferences, and a host of new or newly revitalized social action organizations and networks led largely by young women" (Siegel, 47). I would argue that within the Canadian context, the Montreal Massacre of 1989 was one of such impetuses for Canadian third wave feminists, rallying high school and university students to speak out against violence and gather en masse for memorials, as well as inspiring for many women the first sparks of feminist consciousness.


The chief criticism of third wave feminism and feminists comes from members of the second wave, the women who initiated many of the gains enjoyed by today's generation of women and men. People in their teens and twenties, the daughters and sons of the second wave, have grown up taking equality for granted (Schrof 70; Baumgardner & Richards 77). "The legacy of feminism for me," says Findlen (xii), "was a sense of entitlement ... we are the first generation for whom feminism has been entwined in the fabric of our lives." Findlen and Baumgardner & Richards argue that many young women have integrated the values of feminism into their lives, even if they do not choose to call themselves feminists, and that this is in effect a sign that feminism has succeeded in permeating the social discourse: "This [the integration of feminism into young women's every day lives] is an important barometer of the impact of feminism since feminism is a movement for social change, not an organization doing a membership drive" (Findlen xiv).

 

[Humanistheart]

One of the historical critiques of the Feminist movement has been that feminists tend to try to support many other people's causes rather than push a more narrow agenda of their own.

For example?

 

[Sunstone]

For example?

I'm referring to criticisms of the feminist movement that I've read over the years.

 

[Humanistheart]

Same sex marriage.

Not an apt example. Fighting for gay rights means fighting for lesbians. If gay men are helped by this advent of gay rights it is a by-product, not an intent. And have you ever noticed that lesbians get their own word to mean they are homosexual, but you can say gay in reference to them as well, but men only get the word gay. A word that was originally meant as a slur against them. Homosexual men don't even get their own word.

 

[Nanda]

Not an apt example. Fighting for gay rights means fighting for lesbians. If gay men are helped by this advent of gay rights it is a by-product, not an intent.

I thought you'd say that, and you're wrong. For one thing, you're completely ignoring the countless other feminists who aren't gay to begin with, and gain nothing by supporting gay marriage. For another, it seems you're actually trying to argue that, while feminist may care for lesbian issues, they don't care for gay issues, which is completely absurd. You do realize that there are male feminists, right? And gay male feminists? (I believe Papersock covered that already in this thread. )

But while we're on the topic of not-so-apt examples, how about you address the one you brought up in the first place?

 

[Alceste]

Not an apt example. Fighting for gay rights means fighting for lesbians. If gay men are helped by this advent of gay rights it is a by-product, not an intent. And have you ever noticed that lesbians get their own word to mean they are homosexual, but you can say gay in reference to them as well, but men only get the word gay. A word that was originally meant as a slur against them. Homosexual men don't even get their own word.

Psst... reality is over this way.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Not an apt example. Fighting for gay rights means fighting for lesbians. If gay men are helped by this advent of gay rights it is a by-product, not an intent. And have you ever noticed that lesbians get their own word to mean they are homosexual, but you can say gay in reference to them as well, but men only get the word gay. A word that was originally meant as a slur against them. Homosexual men don't even get their own word.

Wait...? Are you being serious? You're honestly bothered that homosexual men don't get their own word?

 

[Perfect Circle]

The Zerg.

Holy crap. I never thought I would see a starcraft reference on RF.com. I instantly love you now.

+frubals

 

[Humanistheart]

Wait...? Are you being serious? You're honestly bothered that homosexual men don't get their own word?

I don't lose sleep over it but I do find it unfortunate, yes. They are identified by a word that was originally meant as a slant against them. Put it this way, imagine if a racial slur caught and stayed, like calling Japanese individuals japs or african americans ******s.

At any rate, you seem to have missed the point of the previous thread.

 

[Alceste]

I don't lose sleep over it but I do find it unfortunate, yes. They are identified by a word that was originally meant as a slant against them. Put it this way, imagine if a racial slur caught and stayed, like calling Japanese individuals japs or african americans ******s.

At any rate, you seem to have missed the point of the previous thread.

Or calling Jewish people Jews?

 

[Nanda]

And have you ever noticed that lesbians get their own word to mean they are homosexual, but you can say gay in reference to them as well, but men only get the word gay. A word that was originally meant as a slur against them. Homosexual men don't even get their own word.

Actually, it didn't start out a slur at all, and is only used as a slur by school children, for the most part (ie, "That's so gay!") The word was used as a code by homosexuals themselves, starting around the 1920's - so that they could identify each other - but it's origins are much older. This is a word they chose for themselves.

As for lesbian, the word alludes to the poet Sappho, of lesbos, whose work deals largely with her emotional relationships with other women. Lesbians didn't adopt this word to separate themselves from the term "gay," it's been used since the 1500's.

Yeesh...

 

[Perfect Circle]

I don't lose sleep over it but I do find it unfortunate, yes. They are identified by a word that was originally meant as a slant against them. Put it this way, imagine if a racial slur caught and stayed, like calling Japanese individuals japs or african americans ******s.

At any rate, you seem to have missed the point of the previous thread.

No... I'm following it pretty well. That just kinda made me chuckle tbh.

 

[Nanda]

I don't lose sleep over it but I do find it unfortunate, yes. They are identified by a word that was originally meant as a slant against them.

Well, no need to worry about it any longer, because it simply not the case.