Sender: -1.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <20051106113840.7lw22esvdw4gs40c &AElig web.mail.umich.edu>
References: <572acfa2564.436e36f3 &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <572acfa2564.436e36f3 &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset=ISO-8859-1; 	format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.3)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:38:40 -0500
To: lreeves &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu
Cc: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>,         James Mickens 	<jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: mjste &AElig umich.edu
Subject: Re: are you a feminist?
Status: RO

First of all,
Thank you Laurie for your thoughtful comments.  Your disclaimers were
unnecessary, though.  You made very intelligent and coherant points and could
certainly hold your own.  (on a side note, the use of disclaimers and
self-deprecating comments is itself a gendered phenomenon.  many studies have
shown that girls and women are much more likely to couch remarks in statements
such as "I may be wrong, but" and end statements with question marks.  
This has
shown to impact the credibility of their comments, even if they are 
right on!!!)

Second, I think Laurie and I may agree more than we think.  I agree that men
have not concerned themselves with what women think of them and that it 
may not
be productive for women to seek approval from men.  That is certainly not my
point.  My point is that these things happen in a hidden, somewhat insidious
nature, and rather automatically, and the only way to change these 
things is to
work on the institutional level.

Here's a rather personal example.  I apologize for any unintended 
exhibitionism.
Take the issue of body image.  As a self-proclaimed feminist, I very much am
aware of the social construction and malleability of beauty.  A Marilyn Monroe
body, for example, would be considered overweight according to today's
standards. I realize that rail-thin bodies are unrealistic for most body types
and that the constant scrutiny/primping of every facet of my body (from
eye-brow plucking to exfoliating to hair dying) diverts attention from more
meaningful life pursuits.  I am also aware that the feminine ideal of fragile,
stick-thin bodies is yet another means of encouraging women to take up less
space in the world. And if we did an informal poll among all of the women in
this group, my bet is that disatisfaction with one's body exacts a heavy
psychic and emotional cost on the large majority of the group.  It fosters
self-hatred, shame, and a whole lot of other taxing emotional burdens.  Yet,
this is not one-on-one mysogyny.  No person is conspiring to say, "Ha Ha, if I
encourage women to obsess about their bodies, this will be a strategic 
means of
controlling women!  This will breed competition among women instead of 
allowing
them to celebrate their bodies!"  This is institutionalized oppression.  This
is the consequence of a decentralized, diffuse, and all-encompassing system
that encompasses media, fashion, social norms. It encompasses a multi-billion
dollar dieting industry.  It is in our very ideology.  It is 
*inescapable*. Every girl is exposed to this.  And we cannot blame any 
one person.  This is
what I mean by systemic mysogyny.

So, even if I actively work to reject these standards by eschewing Cosmo
magazine or shying away from conversations about weight and diet, I 
cannot help
but internalize the message.  Despite my efforts, I care about how I 
look,  how
skinny I am.  I speak about having "fat days" and equate not fitting into a
size 4 pants with failure.  I am a feminist who is held captive to norms
greater than myself.  This internal contradiction is something I struggle with
every day of my life and it something I am not proud of.  I long to escape
these barriers and yet everything in this culture reinforces them.  And I fear
for my future daughters; I long for a world where they will never experience
these feelings or thoughts.  And I reluctanctly acknowledge that the most
nuturing parenting will not shield them from this pervasive culture.  It is
bigger than any one of us.

That is what I mean about radical feminism and institutional change.  
And a war
of the mind.  Only when we change ideology (in this case, the intimate
connection between feminine and beauty and the conflating of self-worth 
with an
unhealthy aesthetic)--and the structures which perpetuate these 
values--will we
be free.


ess over Quoting lreeves &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu:

> Just a few gut reactions to Michelle's comments.  I'm sure mine will 
> seem simplistic.  I can't keep up with the group's long, erudite, 
> well-researched comments.  They're very impressive!  And sometimes I 
> simply don't have the time (or the interest?) to read through all the 
> the attached articles, etc.  Nevertheless, here goes.
>
> My reaction to the "problem of mysogyny" is that I am unconcerned 
> with it.  Don't get me wrong.  Yes, we should do everything possible 
> to equalize opportunities for men and women, and if that means 
> examining and restructuring certain institutions in the pursuit of 
> equal opportunity (and let's not forget that men may deservedly 
> benefit from certain changes in societal structure and thinking as 
> well) then this should be pursued.  Any mysogyny left lurking in dark 
> corners is of no concern to me as long as I can live my life as I 
> choose, the same way in which any man can.  Mysogyny is a male 
> problem, a male issue, a male loss, and should not be of any concern 
> to women as long as it does not impinge on their freedoms.  Referring 
> to Michelle's closing comment, "This is a war not of the law but of 
> the mind," she may be right but I think the more fruitful way to 
> approach it is to make it a war of law and not of mind.  Women need 
> not concern themselves with what men think of them.  T
> hese are men's demons.  Historically, have men concerned themselves 
> with what women think of them?  I'd say little.  They've pursued 
> their lives with confidence, and yes, most everything else on their 
> side too but let's address the "everything else" and proceed with 
> confidence and less time spent caring about male attitudes toward 
> women.
>
> I warned you that my comments might seem simplistic.  I'm probably 
> not looking at this in the wider spectrum as I should be.  Still, 
> thanks for listening.  Now feel free to tear me apart.  :)
> Laurie (Danny's mom)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michelle Sternthal <mjste &AElig umich.edu>
> Date: Sunday, November 6, 2005 5:51 am
> Subject: Re: are you a feminist?
>
>> I am a feminist, proud to call myself that.  I would even identify
>> myself as a
>> radical feminist.  Not to the extent that I attribute all blame to
>> men
>> or argue
>> for a matriarchy, but to the extent that I think merely equalizing
>> pay or
>> assuring equal representation in our political and judicial
>> spheres will NOT
>> solve the problem of mysogyny.  I think that the very institutions
>> in which we
>> live currently foster discriminiation/oppression; a fundamental
>> reexaminationof hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from
>> these institutions is
>> neccessary to get to a new place.  What does that mean in reality?
>> Well, for
>> example, the concept of professionalism in society and the values
>> it fosters--
>> individualism, excessive consumption, a hierarchical system of
>> work in which 1
>> form of intelligence is prioritized-- creates a system in which
>> women must fit
>> into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize.  The
>> notion of
>> work/family strain, or the very nuclear family, reflects the
>> remnants of
>> traditional patriarchy.  one can think of alternative models of
>> work or
>> kinship
>> ((extended family, think of the kibbutz) in which women would not
>> have to face
>> this struggle or where other skills would be valued.
>>
>> Let's think of gender conceptions, and which institutions
>> encourage
>> these roles.
>> From pre-birth, our children are given a gender.  Religion,
>> schools,
>> everywhere
>> with a public bathroom, highlight this distinction as one of the
>> most
>> important
>> in society.  To equalize the playing field, we must address these
>> institutionsas well and the messages they send....
>>
>> In order to "subvert the dominant gender paradigm" (that's for
>> you,
>> Bethany and
>> Danny) simply demanding laws to equalize pay will not be enough.
>> The ideology
>> behind this inequity must also be addressed.  this is a war not of
>> the law but
>> of the mind....
>>
>> michelle
>>
>>
>> Quoting Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>:
>>
>> > Quick show of hands for your basic attitude towards feminism
>> (and
>> > also I'm curious who all is reading along)?
>> >
>> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>> >
>> > Don't forget to hit submit on the whiteboard.  If you don't know
>> what
>> > that means, just read the poll at the link above and email me
>> your
>> > (ideally one-word) response.
>> >
>> > Thanks y'all!
>> > Danny
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel
>> Reeves">
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michelle Sternthal
>> Joint Doctoral Program in Sociology & Public Policy
>> University of Michigan
>> 734-709-6650 (cell)
>> mjste &AElig umich.edu
>>
>> "We, unaccustomed to courage/ exiles from delight/ live coiled in
>> shells of
>> loneliness/ until love leaves its high holy temple/ and comes into
>> our sight/
>> to liberate us into life."
>> --Maya Angelou
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>