Sender: -1.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-id: <1068d2e628b.436e56db &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Priority: normal
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:17:47 +0100
To: mjste &AElig umich.edu
Cc: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, James Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>,         improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: lreeves &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu
Subject: Re: are you a feminist?
Status: O

Thanks Michelle.  You're right about the disclaimers being unnecessary and a gendered phenomenon.  My using them in this case is noteworthy on two levels I think.  One, my audiance was a group of very intelligent males and females both, and my specific comments were directed at one of those female's comments, yours.  I think they indicate my intimidation in the face of such insightful, educated folks as all of you are.  Second, I believe they are my cowardly way of being able to back out of my stance should I be shown to be obviously misinformed, short-sighted, or whatever else.  Then, I can say, at least to myself, "well, as I already said, I might be wrong."  But having now made these excuses / explanations, I still agree with you that this tends to be a gendered phenomenon.  So, right on for pointing that out Michelle.  

To the second part of your comments.  Yes, I do understand that you meant systemic misogyny rather than a one on one type.  But let's remember that misogyny is in fact often one on one.  Abusive men for example, work consciously or unconsciously to encourage women to focus on their "flaws" (physical and other) and to seek approval from their men in an attempt to control them.  This then is something women must work on in themselves.  Perhaps the changing of society's collective mindset must ultimately be the responsibility of women.  Like you say, multi-billion dollar industries are tough to make inroads with but what if consumers, in this case women, stop buying into them?  The men lose their "power" if women simply don't care.  Sometimes, ranting against things shows we care.  Let's teach little children indifference to these models of feminine beauty for example.  Yes, i think I'm preaching an attitude of female indifference toward men.  What label does this give me on th
e feminist label chart?  Danny?  I'm certainly not a male-hater but if male attitudes, systemic or individual, are a problem to me I dismiss them as unimportant.  Of course, as Michelle says, the insidious and automatic nature of of the negative influences on girls and women is a huge problem.  As a society we should address these problems as much as possible, that is, change laws, etc.  But I believe so much of what we think and condone as a society begins in individual minds.  Raise daughters (and sons!) to see the shallow images of female beauty, for example, as petty and unimportant in the scheme of life.  Perhaps my emphasis on individual responsibility reflects, more than anything, my apprehension that a wholesale change of society is still long in coming.  In the meantime, our lives are short, our children's childhoods are short.  Let's just have fun and live!
And thanks again Michelle, for your affirming comments about my comments!  I appreciate it.
Laurie

----- Original Message -----
From: mjste &AElig umich.edu
Date: Sunday, November 6, 2005 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: are you a feminist?

> 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 
> insidiousnature, 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 
> (fromeye-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 
> heavypsychic 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 
> Cosmomagazine 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 
> normsgreater 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 
> experiencethese 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>