Feminists need to get their own media star

I am sick of Palin grabbing the microphone. Our current breed of feminists just don't have the megaphone.

I think there is too much infighting at NOW for them to objectively recognize their shortfalls.

and women have equal rights, pay and status in our culture. The Senate and Congress and Supreme Court are made up of roughly 50% women and we've elected a woman as president at least once.

3rd Wave Feminism is still very active, relevant and very much needed.

not at all. We are indebted to the 2nd wave, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Before telling me to get laid, a DU "feminist" told me that, Many women are still locked into some fantasy vision of feminism from the 70s. They forget how silly they would look today, based on how far we've moved on. 70s feminists have no problem deriding Carrie Prejean for being a bimbo, a blonde barbie, then in the next thread they don't like term "knocked up" and HATE that someone might refer to a "slutty hostess look." Where's the consistency? 70s feminists are so busy hating on men, they can't figure out that younger women actually want to have relationships and children, with "the enemy." 70s feminists need to do a post mortum in a really bad way.


Pretty weird.

Try living the 1950"s and early 60's lifestyle touted for women and you will understand the raw anger. Getting the energy massed to make women's lib happen came both from releasing a lot of anger at the way women were treated and transitioning that anger into a positive view. When people make this type of journey, they have to work through anger. Let's try wearing on a daily basis clothing that hurts your body like corsets and girdles did, being stuck in a suburban wasteland of babies and house without the ability to choose to do something different, ridicule for expressing your opinions forcefully, being forced into a humiliating dependency where you ask your husband's permission to spend money and make the major decisions in your life, and if you are unlucky enough to not be provided for, you will be humiliated into asking your kids for money or eating cat food at the end of your life. It's Purdah, American style. We just don't cover our bodies as much as orthodox Muslims do.

Now, don't be angry about this!

It's just that 70's feminism couldn't achieve the goals of a radical restructuring of society to accomodate a family (and I include a men's liberation in this as well). Work just isn't structured to accomodate family needs. Yes, you can leave the workforce to have children, but you can't come back in many professions. Wharton tried a re-entry program for their own MBA's and it failed miserably. Most of the women who were retrained were never re-hired in a comparable position. Most of the women over 40 who chose to do this will not have the savings for retirement. What they gave to the family in terms of having the children raised properly they will take from those children in their old age as they turn to their kids for sustenance and care. Today's women will not have the retirement communities that their parents have because they do not have the pensions and savings that the "greatest generation" has -- (never mind having a generation who will pay for government support for programs that benefit the elderly like Social Security, Medicare, and county assistance for the aged). They will not have the relative independence that many of today's elderly do have.

I see the younger generation trying to live their childbearing years like our grandmothers did-- wanting to try and make it on a single income and a pin job -- and not thinking through the consequences. Unionization provided the security and pensions needed for this. We don't have unionization today. We have a situation where a wage earner can not support a household. Those economics haven't changed regardless of how conservative or liberal you are. Hell, we don't even have the guarantee of an 8 hour day that would give us the time to spend on our relationships. The younger generation thinks they can leave the workforce and then just sashay back in. How many people have sat in on an interview where a mother is trying to re-apply for a job at the level she had when she left the workforce? Not many. Why? Personnel and the hiring managers don't even look at those resumes. They are routed right to the waste basket.

Also, as the younger generation touts the fact that workplace equality has been achieved. They are blinded to the fact that older women have been marginalized in corporations and that will be their fate,too, as they, themselves age. That dumpy woman in a support position will be their future and that will be reflected in their wages and their own job security as these women are the first to be laid off in a down turn. Older women do not have the support from the younger generation of women. Because of the insecurity in the workforce, older women do not give the support necessary to the younger ones.

My take is that you need a living wage and a retirement based on an 8 hour day and a proper framework to work at home where possible to take care of family responsibilities that includes paid family leave. This workplace needs to apply to men as well. How can you even think of having a relationship in all its fullness when people are too exhausted to connect to their emotional selves? This revolution in thinking is a revolution across gender, age, and profession/class.

The biggest problem with the attitude I referred to in the previous post is the disconnect. Disconnect from history, disconnect from reality, disconnect from feminism and other feminists and real women. Maybe this is coming out of academia or the arrogance of youth, who knows. Seems to be an epidemic of our age.. I would say "any age" (as in era) except that history has been disappeared, media hatemongers have poisoned the public discourse (people on our side don't recognize how much they've absorbed from Limbaugh and others, including crazy Camille Paglia).

To quote again: "based on how far we've moved on...." How far have "we moved on"? Moved on or moved away? I claim the clock has been turned back. I believe it b/c I watched it happen.

Without continuity and respect for where we came from, all those before us on whose shoulders we stand, effective, unified efforts aren't possible.

What Omega forgets to mention of course, is that her OP put forth the hand-wringing, outraged idea that we've "devolved" and that today's street fashion is an example of said "devolvement."

Take any issue - rape, marital rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment on the job, education and job opportunities, and please elucidate me as to how we've devolved.

Back then rape victims were treated horribly by LE, and their personal lives were put on trial. Rape is still an issue, but women are much more apt to report it and be treated like a humanely. The idea of marital rape would have elicited a good belly laugh. Domestic violence was simply a reality and rarely prosecuted. You needed a big, intimidating father or brother to send the message to a violent husband. That, or women were advised it was somehow "their fault." Reporting sexual harassment would've gotten the woman fired. Today, if anyone makes sexist comments or leers at breasts can be hauled into HR and reprimanded, or fired. For the first time in history there are more women getting university degrees than men, and is anyone really going to argue about job opportunities, the economic depression notwithstanding? Where's the big devolvement? I wouldn't trade my life to go back in time for anything.

As to "street fashion" being a visual example of devolvement, again how is this so? Micro-minis, hot pants and plastic gogo boots. D-cup women bulging out of teeny halter tops, and skin tight, hip-hugger, bell bottoms that could only be zipped up by lying half off the bed and exhaling completely. That was the 60s and 70s. The 80s saw women favoring either glitter make-up and badly permed, huge hair, or shoulder pads so wide it made women look like linebackers. The idea being that the way to compete with men was to act, and look, just like them. This is somehow different, or better, than today's uni-sex look of baggy-assed jeans low enough to expose peoples' pantaloons?

That's what I was responding to.

Yet again in this thread, like so many other feminist-related threads, there is someone using the word "bimbo." I'm surprised any feminist would further the notion that someone who is pretty or attractive must be stupid, or nothing more than an empty-headed barbie doll. That's sad, IMO. And not helpful.

Yes, there was a huge backlash against feminism during the late nineties and early 2000s. Partially for the reasons you describe in your post... women realizing they weren't going to accomplish everything without dropping from exhaustion... and also because feminists have sought to tell people how they should appropriately enjoy their sex lives. How they should dress.

If people want to scream and rush onto the media bandwagon regarding the latest musings of the anti-christ, anti-feminist Sarah Palin, decrying our devolved state of being, so be it. I'll spend my time fighting for equal pay and volunteering at my local women's shelter.

unless you're a woman who can think for herself.

Douche.

The post you were responding to seems to be, but yours is unclear, texasleo. Perhaps you want to clarify?

:evilgrin:

least Camille Paglia seems to have gone away.

Kidnap them and send them to the shell of Gitmo?

:eyes:

Somehow, though, they keep foisting rich white men on us, with women usually playing second fiddle or worse.

Women have a quota in the MSM.

Read my signature line - out of THIRTY op-ed columnists for the Washington Post, only THREE are women. We've come a long way, Baby - NOT!

I know there is a group trying to ensure that women's voices are heard across the political spectrum

Classy lady. Always pleasant to hear from her.

:patriot:

.
The writing on the hands means, "Woman Equals Man."





.

:yourock:

and hypocrisy sucks

Why so grumpy?

I was happy to see you! :hi:

:shrug:

I'm just me. I have a low tolerance for woo, but I am a nice person!

Have a beer! :beer:

you are part of the wonderful fabric of DU, and you make me smile.

:toast:

Moving.

I know so many young women here who are caught up in this. They have never seen anything like it.

stupid - or someone to go that low. She has already made herself known as an idiot. Let her speak - it just reinforces her idiocy. Like I was thinking, what if Hillary tried to respond to her? It would be such a mismatch - it would highlight what an idiot Palin is -- but - it would also legitimize what she is spouting.

And repeatedly against right wingers on KO and other MSNBC shows.

Where's the flamers? The piranhas? The haters? The professional nimrods?

Oh, that's right. You didn't say much so there's not much to :freak: about.

Whereas an OP suggesting:

"Rather than complain that the corporate media and Republicans
are trying to manipulate public opinion and champion Sarah Palin
by exploiting an occurrence of sexism,
why don't DU recognize that we live in a fishbowl of sexism
(and other bigotry) that harms all of us
and fully and openly take back the issue of women's rights from the Right?"

gets fucked over royally. (Well there were two many damn syllables before cutting to the chase..............:crazy:.................)

:applause:

Yeah fer sure, we need a spokesmodel, a media bimbo for feminsim, how bout Mary Hart? She's been a hardworking "gal" for a long time. She's familiar with the mic and interviewing. She never seems to age.

Mary Hart!! (Is she a Democrat?)

We need someone who can connect.... there's an art to handling the media and given the mesh of infotainment that is dished up to us where news and entertainment blur, it can't be done in a totally sedate manner. That person doesn't have to be a bimbo but does need to be able to have that elusive quality of connecting.

Hey, remember me? Big Picture, Hung Out For The Pile On OM?

Gotta remind everybody who OWNS the media. The playing field ain't level. Maybe recreate the game instead of try to play theirs?

I agree with your points. Don't know that going toe to toe with liiars and mercenaries in a rigged game is the best strategy.

that Palin doesn't really grab the microphone - the MSM hands it to her. We've got plenty of strong, loud voices out there that are doing their best to be heard. You apparently just don't know where to look for them.

I would start here: www.feministing.com

Feministing is a great blog. Hillary is busy these days (actually doing her job, unlike someone else we could mention). Sibelius is great. Glad to see Sotomayer probably coming on board. Michelle is wonderful.

But we need our own media star that represents liberal democrats and is feminist. We are starting to see Republicans twist feminist issues such as what the boundary lines are in speaking to women properly, Sotomayer belonging to a female-only club.

We democrats are doing the work of passing significant legislation like Lily Ledbetter Act and yet, I think most Americans don't know that it happened. But they do know Letterman made a crack at the expense of Palin.

I'd just like to see media savvy women up the profile of feminist issues (equal pay, child care, what the boundaries are of respectful speech ) and to do that, you need something to attract the media. Wonkish defenses of noble positions just don't do it. Even signing significant legislation gets its 5 minutes of fame and then its gone. It takes a real ability to connect with the camera. Hillary did it in her closing speech of her campaign. But that was one speech. We need more.

Fist Thumps the Table!

I think it is healthy to see women talk about all kinds of issues from national security to growing vegetables.

If women only talk about gender equality the whole time then they will continue to be marginalized.

BTW - it annoys me to see all the immature "we hate Sarah Palin" attitude around here.

It reminds me a lot of how Freepers talk/type about Secretary Clinton or President Obama.

Do we feel so threatened by Governor Palin that we have to attack her the whole time?

Disagreeing with Republicans and fighting their ideas 24/7 is totally OK with me.

But can't we argue the issues without always attacking the person? :eyes:

Or at least, not totally. But for a lot of people on the left, and especially feminists, she represents everything about politics and social issues that we're fighting against. When she puts herself out there in media, very vocally backing certain issues, she invites criticism from those that disagree with her. And she gets a much bigger bullhorn to speak with than most of the rest of us. How is taking a stance against her automatically considered hating her?

And I disagree about the gender equality fight. It is a foundational issue that so many other inequalities spring from. Why wouldn't we invest time, effort, and money into fighting it? Do you mean to say, that gender equality will just be granted if we act like good little girls and hush up and take whatever the big boys feel like giving us? Um, no. Anyone worth their salt is going to tell you that the issues worth pursuing are worth pursing as often and as loudly as it takes to fix them. Gender equality has not happened, so we're still fighting for it. Simple as that. Sorry to see that you apparently don't agree with that.

Why must you defend her ad nauseum?

it's a question of having people with star power talking about feminist points. The GOP is trying to split women from the Democratic Party and to promote a female ideal of a false strength... You can be kick ass and sassy in the service of the patriarchy. The embodiment of this philosophy needs to be brought down. The personal is political because the issues that affect women are personal and the fight to resolve these issues takes place on the political plane.

Ergo, a lot of Palinisms are political. How much sexuality can a woman exude before it crosses a line? W How can someone (and I mean Palin herself) not be a virgin before marriage and promote abstinence? If you arent going to be a virgin (like Palin herself wasn't), why is it necessary that under all conditions you are to bring to term a pregnancy? Since you believe that the family should pick up the consequences of an unplanned single motherhood, I guess that means you are paying for the health insurance of that baby? On a salary of $120K with a lot of expenses (such as clothing :) ), exactly how are you paying for health care bills that can easily run $1000/month? Your number just don't add up. Exactly how are you carrying out the duties of a governor and the therapy needed for a severely handicapped child, or is that day to day responsibility foisted on a family member or a nanny? I mean, there are a lot of doctor's appointments and a lot of home exercises that need to get done. Is your philosophy of letting the family handle it one that should be generalized across the American population? Why do you belong to a political party that proposes the deepest cuts to government programs that help people with these problems? Who are they supposed to turn to if they do not have a supportive family, that many of them don't. Real family values means the entire family doing the heavy lifting on these issues.

Or do we get married at 18 and divorced at 21 like they do in the Bible Belt?

When is a woman truly unqualified to seek a position and should be denied that position even when she touts a charge of discrimination? We've all seen times when the truly qualified didn't get what was due to them, and the truly unqualifed should sit down and shut up. How do we judge this? How do we identify puppets and call them out?

The conservative myth is a dream world and Palin is their dream girl. We need media savvy spokespersons who can entertain, manage the sound bytes, thrust and parry with the opposition, and connect with the audience. If we had someone who can suck the oxygen out of the room, Palin and the conservative mythology will wither and die. I want the conservative ideology buried along with Victorian hoop skirts. Since there is a vacuum on our side, Palin has the ability to move in.

"But can't we argue the issues without always attacking the person...


Oftentimes, the issue is the person.