Feminism in News and Popular Media

[*Anya*]

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2015 BY HEATHER

Performance Reviews: The Hurdle that Keeps Getting Higher

A NEW study by the linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com, found two differences between workplace performance reviews given to men and women. Across 248 reviews from 28 companies, managers, whether male or female, gave female employees more negative feedback than they gave male employees. Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included a personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

Why?

Why is this the case in 2015? Why are women getting more negative feedback than men on personality traits and finding gender bias in performance reviews? I refuse to believe that women are truly under performing as a gender. In 2013, Women in STEM careers consistently reported feeling like females have to perform better than men to be judged equally competent (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, & Huge). So women feel as if they have to go above and beyond yet still get more negative feedback.

Women report that their mistakes are noticed more, and remembered longer (Bauer & Baltes, 2002). So, women are faced with the pressure of being perfect. A female can’t make a mistake or have a bad day because it will linger longer than their male contemporaries. There is simply no room for error if you are a female.

Why are women given more negative managerial feedback about their personality?

Behavior and emotional intelligence are playing a larger role in performance evaluations these days. I would think this would be where women would win the day. After all, many women are instinctively nurturing, yet instead of being a big, gold star it is a source of criticism.

What to do?

How can women fight back against this injustice? Here are a few ideas.

Keep records of what you do.

This can be something as low tech as keeping a notebook at your desk. Before you leave at the end of the day, write the date at the top, and then list everything you accomplished. An electronic calendar is another good way to document what you do daily. Put anything outstanding in bold so that you can be sure to include it in your discussion with your manager.

Develop your network.

Having a group of cheerleaders that get out the positive word about your performance and reputation will offset any negative statements in your annual review. Just remember to do the same for them, and they will totally appreciate the gesture. My rule of thumb is to always “talk up” my team. You would think my team is the best and brightest of the entire company based on what I say about them.

Pay it forward by supporting other women.

Mentor those below you, and sell the sponsor above you. Yes, I said sell your sponsor. Ensure you always speak of the positive aspects of your sponsor. Remember, he or she is giving feedback to the succession planning of the company. If you want a slot to open for you, the best way is to help someone above you get a promotion. If you can, try to find ways to help other women find success. Over time, women will rise to the top of the pile and truly be an equal part of the workplace!

If you know of any other strategies to help women get past the gender bias issues inherent in performance reviews, let us know!

We’d love to hear from you and keep the discussion ongoing!


Heather graduated from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte with an Electrical Engineering degree, and later received her MBA. She first worked as an engineer designing sub-stations for a regional power company.
She is now an engineering project manager for an international company specializing in smart grid technology.

http://leanedon.com/gender-bias-in-performance-reviews/

[DapperButch]

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-...ed-man-twitter

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-...ed-man-twitter

This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.

Ummm, thanks.

Hopefully, it can still be appreciated here.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-...ed-man-twitter

Originally Posted by Kobi

This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Ummm, thanks.

Hopefully, it can still be appreciated here.

I actually do not think that it is out of place in either thread.

The following quote encompasses both:

"It turned out I hadn’t gone from woman to man, but from object to human.

I spent the week discussing systemic oppression and race. An intersectional feminist, I dove into rape culture. I talked about the need for police accountability, condemning domestic violence and amplifying other voices. It was almost always without interruption. My voice felt so unrestricted. How beautiful it felt to speak without fear of retribution. I felt such freedom."

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I actually do not think that it is out of place in either thread.

The following quote encompasses both:

"It turned out I hadn’t gone from woman to man, but from object to human.

I spent the week discussing systemic oppression and race. An intersectional feminist, I dove into rape culture. I talked about the need for police accountability, condemning domestic violence and amplifying other voices. It was almost always without interruption. My voice felt so unrestricted. How beautiful it felt to speak without fear of retribution. I felt such freedom."

Thanks, Anya. My goal was to post it in the forum that the largest number of people who would be interested in it would read it. This thread gets a lot of readers.

It's interesting. I am wondering if my inclination to look for the feminism thread because the energy behind the article to me (and the energy I felt she was putting out...maybe because that was what I wanted to read in it) was her sense of power as a women (feminism), rather than her writing from a place of defeat (misogyny and sexism...but which of course the article is about).

This would all be unconscious, of course, but is interesting to think about.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Thanks, Anya. My goal was to post it in the forum that the largest number of people who would be interested in it would read it. This thread gets a lot of readers.

It's interesting. I am wondering if my inclination to look for the feminism thread because the energy behind the article to me (and the energy I felt she was putting out...maybe because that was what I wanted to read in it) was her sense of power as a women (feminism), rather than her writing from a place of defeat (misogyny and sexism...but which of course the article is about).

This would all be unconscious, of course, but is interesting to think about.

Different perspectives render different analysis.

To me, the gist of this article was how this woman discovered that when she "posed as a male" she had a totally different experience than that which she had as a woman.

Being perceived as a male, her opinion counted more, she was validated, she was heard and seen.

As a woman, her experience was to be ignored, insulted, dismissed, and devalued.

To me, this is sexism and misogyny in action. It is where perceived sex leads to a different experience and a different sense of importance.

Feminism is about women being empowered because they are women. It is about their presence, their opinions, their views are valuable simply because they are valued as a people within society.

The empowement this woman felt didnt come from being seen as and appreciated as a female. The empowerment came from being perceived as and validated as a male. Not the same thing.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Different perspectives render different analysis.

To me, the gist of this article was how this woman discovered that when she "posed as a male" she had a totally different experience than that which she had as a woman.

Being perceived as a male, her opinion counted more, she was validated, she was heard and seen.

As a woman, her experience was to be ignored, insulted, dismissed, and devalued.

To me, this is sexism and misogyny in action. It is where perceived sex leads to a different experience and a different sense of importance.

Feminism is about women being empowered because they are women. It is about their presence, their opinions, their views are valuable simply because they are valued as a people within society.

The empowement this woman felt didnt come from being seen as and appreciated as a female. The empowerment came from being perceived as and validated as a male. Not the same thing.

I wasn't saying anything about what the article was about. It was clearly about misogyny and sexism. This is why I said "misogyny and sexism...which of course is what the article was about".

I was making comment on how I felt the woman viewed herself...that it didn't knock her down any.

[BullDog]

Thanks for posting the article Dapper.

I think it could be posted in either thread or both, and I'm not sure why the need to nit pick where it goes.

She chose to experience something and then speak out in a strong and clear voice afterwards. To me that is feminism in action.

[Allison W]

CASTRATOR'S BRUTAL 'NO VICTIM' EP IS A PERFECT FEMINIST DEATH METAL REVENGE FANTASY

By Kim Kelly

When I first saw the name Castrator, I hoped in my heart of hearts that I'd somehow stumbled across some kind of badass feminist death metal killing machine. How awesome would that be, right? Given death metal's traditional approach towards the concept of feminism (and women in general—that's a whole 'nother thinkpiece right there), though, I wasn't banking on it. With a name like that, it was probably just another pornogrind slamfest hoping to one day secure a coveted opening slot for Cemetery Rapist or Prostitute Disfigurement.

Imagine my surprise and delight, then, when I got a promo email from their label, Horror Pain Gore Death, revealing that my initial hunch had been correct and that Castrator was in fact the band of my dreams. Not only is the fledgling supergroup a self-described all-female band, it's an international effort—women from established underground bands in Colombia, Florida, Mexico, Massachusetts, Sweden, and Norway had come together to write brutal death metal songs about chopping off dicks and stabbing rapists. Before you go crying "misandry," keep in mind the astonishing glut of metal songs that celebrate graphic, gory violence against women. It's about time someone stepped up to level the playing field, and Castrator's knives are sharpened and at the ready.

The band's members prefer to remain semi-anonymous, but a little sleuthing pointed me towards vocalist M.S. and nabbed Noisey the chance to premiere the vicious, life-affirming title track for the band's new EP, No Victim.

M.S. was also kind enough to answer a barrage of my excited questions via email, and to tell us exactly why a band like Castrator is so much fun—and so necessary.

Castrator is a confrontational band, from the name to song titles like "Honor Killing," "The Emasculator" —hell, all of them read like a feminist revenge fantasy. Is Castrator the first overtly feminist death metal band?
M.S.: You could call us that. We are unapologetically strong, independent, and pissed-off females. We aren’t asking for equality, we’re taking it. Not all of us choose to carry the flag of feminism, though I most certainly do. We are five women who love death metal, who like jamming with other like-minded women, and we feel like we have some ideas worth expressing. People will label us how they will, we aren’t concerned about it. We are going to make the music we want to make, and we are having a great time doing it!

What brought you all together in the first place? You're all part of your own established projects all over the world—would I be remiss to think that Castrator was born from your collective frustration at the bullshit you've had to endure as female musicians in a brutal genre?
C. Perez and I got to know each other through the NYC metal scene when playing shows with our other bands. She expressed the desire to form an all-female band, and I was really into it. I had an all-female project once in the past, but it fell apart after a year. I still had a lot of ideas for lyrics and themes that I wanted to get out in this kind of band. I have to say, yes, it has been really nice to vent amongst other ladies all the bullshit we deal in the metal scene. It’s also something fun, it’s a much different vibe then writing with my other bands that contain only male members besides myself. I still love my other bands too, this is just something different and refreshing for me.

What do you aim to accomplish with this band? Have you encountered any pushback or hate from other death metal fans?
We aim to write some killer music, play some aggressive shows, and take no prisoners! So far we have had nothing but great support from the scene, male and female fans, and other bands. Some of our biggest supporters are men. Yeah, some guys out there are a little afraid of us, they cup their balls, hehe. I’m sure we’ll eventually run into some haters… but we aren’t concerned about that. We do what we like, we’re having fun and we don’t give a fuck who doesn’t like it.

The album title, No Victim, is so powerful—can you tell me a little more about it? The lyrics for the song itself resonate so deeply.
The idea behind that song and album title is highlighting the fear all women deal with walking alone at night- the fear of being attacked and raped. Yes, it’s so easily relatable to any woman! It’s something guys don’t usually think about, and it’s really not fair. It’s something we should talk about more in society, and change the whole predator-victim scenario. We also want to empower women to realize their own strength and ability… to fight their attackers when possible. That same old story of a rapist attacking a woman in a dark alley can have a different ending.

All your lyrics are intense, especially on "Honor Killing," whose horror is ripped from the headlines. Given your own half-Indian background, what was it like to write and sing these words?
I think now more than ever, it’s important to bring up the issues and struggles, especially in particular parts of the world where women’s rights are far behind. Definitely this song has some personal connection for me. I really feel for those who are suffering violence, rape, and murder in India and other countries. This has got to stop. When writing this song, I researched and read countless news story after news story and documentaries of individual cases of honor killings (there are so many)! It’s so hard to look at, it’s disgusting. Even so, I made myself look straight at it, get pissed off, and turned those feelings and thoughts into lyrics.

"Brood" is deliciously creepy, but also sobering when you remember that so many people still think of women as broodmares - baby machines with no other value. Did any specific situation inspire the lyrics for this one?
Yes, you are right. In a way it’s about that, how our own bodies and sexual reproduction don’t “belong” to us anymore. Women’s bodies and rights are so often controlled by men, the law makers, boyfriends, husbands in this patriarchal system. It’s also about how this unbalanced system is allowed by or continued by women, by accepting it and not fighting it or rising above it. It was inspired by the case of Octomom, she wanted to seek fortune and fame through having an unnatural amount of children. The song takes the idea that a woman’s value is determined through childbirth and her ability to please men, but this theme on steroids. I feel she is a victim of our disturbed society, and not necessarily a monster in and of herself.

Where is the sample on "The Emasculator" from? It's rad to see you turning the tables on the countless brutal death, goregrind, and pornogrind bands that litter their records with sample after sample of women in sexual distress or death throes.
The sample is from Hostel 2. I found it while searching for a good castration audio sample, haha! That’s exactly it. We are turning the tables on what you usually see in brutal death metal that focuses on rape and torture of women. We are doing what the guys do but from a female point of view, and in doing so making a critique of the whole genre. In some of our themes, a woman is the powerful one, the victor. If someone has a problem with our lyrics and samples, they should frown equally upon misogynistic themes. We ourselves are pretty laid back about all these things. We aren’t going to tell people what kind of music they should or shouldn’t write, or listen to; I believe in artistic expression and freedom of speech. But if there will be anti-female themed bands out there, I believe there should also be anti-male or at least pro-female bands out there too. I suppose that is a goal, to add some balance to the male dominated metal scene, and to the male-dominated world.

I don’t have a serious problem with people who joke about those things; I don’t like it, but I have more of a problem with musicians and fans that take anti-women themes seriously, and there are many of those out there. There are men out there that genuinely disrespect women and I would go so far as to say, they hate women. They take out their own frustrations of their own shortcomings and dissatisfaction with their lives and relationships, and they turn it outward at all women. We deal with these attitudes on a daily basis, in the scene and in our daily lives. I’m all about changing people’s perspectives or making them think a little bit.

You're in a few other brutal bands of your own, and write lyrics with traditional gory (though genderless) violence, or sociopolitical screeds. How much do you think is too much in terms of fantasy violence in extreme metal lyrics?

I believe strongly in freedom of expression. I wouldn’t support people with sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs, but I also don’t believe in censorship or banning. As long as you aren’t hurting, someone you should be able to create whatever art or music you like. I think it’s just important to speak truth and try to change people’s ideas and opinions through what you do and what you create, using educated and evolved ideas. When I see bands with the same rehashed violence fantasy lyrics, I just think, "Booooring. Those themes have already been done a thousand times over, is this band doing anything creative or new?"

Given Castrator's members' far-flung geographical locations, do you intend to do any touring or at least more live shows to support No Victim?
We are getting together next week to shoot a music video and play a small tour including Philthadelphia Infest, Brooklyn NY, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. We’re excited to get out there and emasculate!

'No Victim' is out May 5 via Horror Pain Gore Death Productions.

[Allison W]

So Hillary Clinton announced her presidency and I'm not seeing a lot of posting about it around here. Did I kill the thread that badly?

[Kobi]

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests is a renewal movement within the Church that began in Germany with the ordination of seven women on the Danube River in 2002. In 2003, Gisela Forster and Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger (two of the original Danube 7) were ordained bishops and in 2005 Patricia Fresen from South Africa (who currently lives in Germany) was also ordained a bishop. Womenbishops ordained in Apostolic Succession continue to carry out the work of ordaining women in the Roman Catholic Church. In 2006, Ida Raming was ordained a bishop and in 2008 Dana Reynolds of California became the first American Roman Catholic Womanbishop. These women and those who have come after them continue to carry on the pastoral work of ordaining women to the priesthood. Currently there are over 145 Roman Catholic women worldwide who are reclaiming their ancient spiritual heritage and are re-shaping a more inclusive, Christ-centered Church for the 21st century. We advocate a new model of priestly ministry united with the people with whom we serve. We are rooted in a response to Jesus who called women and men to be disciples and equals living the Gospel.

Homepage

Portraits From the Forbidden Priesthood of Women

[Cin]

"Sophie Thomas wore a black t-shirt with the word ‘feminist’ printed in white lettering to school on the day that school photographs were being taken. When Thomas received the printed photograph last week, she and her mother Christine discovered that the school had erased the word completely without their knowledge."

Ah plus ça change. Feminist is still a dirty word. So many women don't want to be seen as feminists. Nothing new here. Still it's sad to see a female who has power over so many young minds making the choice to step on this girl's attempt to express herself.

"School principal Kendra Young said she had made the decision to remove the word because it is “offensive to some people”.

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talki...4#.VTW8DmNFCM8

[Kätzchen]

I have several long time friends in my metro area who are senior executive librarians who posted this article on Facebook. All of them support the choice made by former U. S. President Jimmy Carter. I've always thought he was a decent person, fair and deeply humanitarian. I couldn't be happier that he is leading by example and reusing himself from religious politics in favor of strong political efforts in favor of lifting women to a more rightful place in American society and to help lead the way for tremendous social reform across gender identity divides. While this article was published back in 2009, it is in recirculation as of tonight.

(Please see article below).

____________________________


Losing my religion for equality.

July 15, 2009 - 12:00AM


By JIMMY CARTER

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.


Copyright © 2015 Fairfax Media The Age

(Link: http://m.theage.com.au/federal-polit...0v.html?stb=fb)

[Soon]

Progressive

Let’s start, this time, with a story. This is about Hillary Clinton – everything I write seems to be about her these days – but it’s about me, too. It’s about what it means, to be a feminist, or a woman on the left, and whether it matters. So before I get to her, let’s give you a good look at me.

I’m at a job interview. It seems like I actually have a shot at this one. Someone who likes me knows the boss here, and has talked me up to him in person. I can show him my most recent performance review, in which I’m described as “a joy to work with,” that “my editors fight over who gets to edit my pieces,” and where the “places for improvement” section mentions they actually have to “wrack their brains for something I could do better.” I’ve come prepared to talk about my strong, built-in reader base, which I built from the ground up; the fact that I’ve led several social media campaigns that received national or international press attention and raised substantial funds, one of which was enthusiastically endorsed by several pro-choice members of Congress; my award for social media activism, from a prestigious women’s media organization, which I won by popular vote; the fact that I wind up at or near the top of my magazine’s “most-read” traffic list every time I publish a new piece.

I can mention other things, basic work-ethic things. I can mention that I have not voluntarily taken a vacation day or a sick day for the past 18 months, and that the last sick day I took was only because I was hospitalized. (I do have to take the day off on federal holidays, but on those days, I usually write for fun.) I can mention that I have never been late filing a piece. I can mention that the copy comes in clean, doesn’t require much editing, and gets turned around quickly, with maximum co-operation. I can talk about all that, at my job interview. Those are the questions I’m prepared to answer.

I’m not prepared for the question they ask.

“We’re a progressive site,” the man across the table begins, “And our readership, as with most progressive sites, is mostly men. You’ve focused a lot on women’s issues. Would you be comfortable writing something that men would be able to read?”

I’m silent for a second. I keep smiling — always smile at the job interview — but I cannot speak. Largely because I believe that what I just heard cannot possibly be what he really said. I misinterpreted something. I missed a word, misheard a word. He can’t actually be telling me that I would have to stop being so feminist to get a job at his “progressive” site. Or that “progressive” media is mostly for men.

“I read your most recent article,” he adds, helpfully. “That seemed very sympathetic to the male character.”

Okay. So I heard him right.

I keep smiling. It’s a test, I tell myself, he wants to see if you’re an angry feminist. I tell him that I pride myself on my versatility, having covered everything from campaign finance reform to reproductive rights to television. I tell him that many of my long-time readers are men, in fact, and I appreciate them very much; I’m confident that I would be able to deliver a diverse and substantial reader base to his publication. I mention the “most-read list” factoid. I keep smiling....



....

....Hillary Clinton lets them insult her with a smile on her face, because she wants the job. Because there is no way to just flip a table, throw the coffee, walk out of this bitch in protest, and get the job she wants. There never is. Not for her, not for me, not for any of us. She smiles.
Yeah, I’m voting for her. Not “because of her gender.” Because of this really basic, stupid belief I have that the most qualified person should be the person who gets the job....


(post too long / link below for full read)

http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/138...28/progressive

[homoe]

Any opinions on the op ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled " When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism"?

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

Any opinions on the op ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled " When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism"?

I thought it made some valid points!

[DapperButch]

Here is the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/op...nism.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by homoe

I thought it made some valid points!

Homoe, what did you get out of the article...what were the "valid points"?

[Cin]

The New Chauvinists Try to Defend Women – But Who Will Defend Us from Them?
by
Laurie Penny

It’s a miracle. All over the world, conservatives and curtain-twitching bigots have taken up the cause of fighting violence against women. From Donald Trump, vowing to protect white Americans from “rapist” Mexican migrants, to European far-right groups that are mustering against the supposed Muslim threat to “their” wives and daughters, conservatives are rebranding themselves as the defenders of women and girls. But who will defend us from them?

The idea that Western men must shelter “their” women from a terrifying mass of foreign masculinity has been around for a very long time. It was used to justify the murder of black men in the US from the slave era onwards, even as black women were abused in their millions by white landowners. It is used to excuse state surveillance and militarised policing around the world, and by the new right to rationalise its bigotry. Following the mass sexual assault of women at the New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, groups such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – a neo-fascist group currently polling at around 15 per cent in Germany – have taken up the old banner of chaperoning white womanhood.

The phrase that I have been using to describe this line of argument is “the New Chauvinism”. Chauvinism is commonly understood in the context of male chauvinism, which most people think is all about holding open doors and getting shouted at by feminists. But it is described by the Oxford English Dictionary as “exaggerated or aggressive patriotism”, with the secondary definition of “excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause, group, or sex”.

The New Chauvinism is about both of those things. It uses crude, nationalist sentiment to cast white men in the roles of heroes, protecting “their” women from hordes of, variously, migrants, Muslims and transsexual people.

On behalf of white women everywhere, allow me to say how much safer I don’t feel. It would be easier to believe in the AfD as a defender of women, for example, if it were not also campaigning to ban abortion and gay marriage, undermine the right to div­orce, close kindergartens and strip single mothers of state funding – all in the name of protecting the “traditional family”.

Fundamentalist throwbacks of every sort have remarkably similar ideas about how to protect women, so it is no surprise that the AfD echoes the philosophy of many hard-line Islamist groups on the role of women in society. If anyone wants to turn western Europe into a patriarchal religious police state, it is the far right and not migrants fleeing violence – but irony, to these people, is probably a small town in the Middle East that should be flattened with cluster bombs to protect Christian women everywhere.

You might think that it is nice of them to care. However, I don’t see these self-appointed defenders of women volunteering at domestic violence shelters or donating to rape crisis hotlines. Instead, they hold racist demonstrations in multicultural communities and harass women on the internet, which is a curious way to demonstrate your commitment to public safety.

Across the Atlantic, the American Family Association – a Christian fundamentalist organisation recognised as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre – has admitted to sending men into women’s bathrooms in branches of the retail chain Target to “test” its policy of allowing transsexuals to use the lavatory of their chosen gender. Unable to prove that this policy will allow “men in dresses” to abuse “their” daughters, the association became the creeping queer threat to American womanhood that it wished to see in the world.

These New Chauvinists, who are mostly men, want to protect women from violence – as long as they are the right sort of women. Trans women, queer women, immigrant women and women of colour are nowhere in the sticky mass of stereotypes and dog-whistle racism that passes for their analysis. The Christian groups who claim to want to protect “their daughters” from trans women in the ladies’ loos seem unbothered by how some of their daughters may well be trans – and trans women face violence in huge numbers.

This sort of chauvinism has always been racist and classist, because it is all about men deciding who gets to be treated like a lady – protected, treasured and infantilised – and who gets treated like chattel. As for ungrateful social justice warriors like me, we deserve to be oiled up and thrown to the Taliban: I’m told as much every day by white men who claim to abhor Islamic-coded violence against women but seem to have an erotic fascination with its details.

The New Chauvinism functions on two levels: it stokes up the fear of outsiders by casting foreign, black or queer masculinity as the real threat and it undermines feminist activism by claiming that women just don’t know what’s good for us. Here we are, iron-knickered harpies, making a fuss about equal pay and domestic violence and rape culture, when if we would only shut up and listen to men like we’re supposed to, we would know that the real threat comes from outside.

The New Chauvinists must not be allowed to co-opt feminist rhetoric. These people are not defenders of women. They are the ones who seek to put women in their place, substituting genuine respect for female autonomy with patronising “protection”, which is conditional on our good behaviour and only available if we are white.

Misogyny is not the preserve of any one group. It is a structural, cultural problem that exists in every nation on earth. The vast majority of Western feminists are not fooled by those who seek to undercut our cause to rationalise their racism: but who cares what we think? We’re only women, after all.

http://commondreams.org/views/2016/0...defend-us-them

[homoe]

HBO's beloved series "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking in its day, showcasing women in their 30s and 40s who were single, sexual and stylish. But looking back on the show more than 20 years after it premiered, actress Cynthia Nixon can see that it also had "a lot of failings of the feminist movement in it."

Nixon noted what hindsight has brought to light. “One of the hardest things for me...is looking back and seeing how much of it centered around money, right? And how, Steve, my (character’s) husband, was like the closest we got to a working class guy, you know? Never mind a working class woman, right?”

She made A LOT of money from that show and it sure didn't seem to bother her so much back then! And actually if you think about it, the same could be said of the Sex and the City movie franchises! Again she didn't turn down the big bucks she made from those as well!

In all fair honestly since she came out and got married to a woman she's made several comments that have irritated me to no end!