*************************************************************************
First of all, this is my 100th Post! Bust out the champage, or something!
*************************************************************************
Okay, back to business.
I find this group interesting because I've always found the feminist movement to be very counter-productive and hypocrytical. In trying to be equal to men, I feel that women have just tried to BE men, while ignoring the powers that they have as women. Women can be strong and influential and VERY powerful if they simply tune into their innate female powers. Women's intuition, the ability to create life, push-up bras... Come on ladies, we have a lot to work with. Of course equality of rights of men and women is absolutely essential, but equality of rights does not equal total equality. And by desperately trying to prove that it does, women have made themselves look rather silly, in my opinion. For example: shoulder pads? Sure, we'll advance our careers by looking like football players!
Ladies can be powerful while still being ladies, thank you very much. I don't think spitting on a guy because he holds the door for you is a necessarily empowering thing to do...but that's just me. Frankly, I think that the feminists don't give themselves--or any women, for that matter--enough credit. Women are powerful, simply because they're women. We hold a lot of cards. Feminism has pretty much done all it needs to do (not that I think it was ever entirely necessary). We have the rights, now we just have to work it. And we don't have to strive to be as vulgar or aggressive as men can be in order to do so.
REAL Women of Canada is probably self-described as being a "feminist" movement, but only in reference to the empowerment of women, not in the traditional, bra-burning sense. They're now celebrating their quarter-century mark, and credit Sarah Palin with holding similar values to theirs. Here's what they say "their view" is:
...
"Women are Individuals"
"Women are not all the same. We are as different in our likes and desires as men. No one organization or ideology can represent the views of all women any more than any one organization can represent the views of all men. Until the formation of REAL Women of Canada, there was no voice to represent the views of those many thousands of women who take a different point of view from that of the established feminist groups. We're filling a need that has long existed. None of us has a corner on the truth. Thus, the diversity of views and approaches should be regarded as an advantage to women, as well as an indication of our tremendous diversity, independence and resourcefulness.
REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active for Life) Women of Canada, a non-partisan, inter-denominational organization, believes the social and economic problems of women should be resolved by taking into consideration the effects on family life and society as a whole. REAL Women believes the family is the most important unit in society, as we have yet to develop a better model to care for the young, protect the weak and attend the elderly."
...
I'm a fan :)
They are very traditional in a lot of ways. They believe fetuses are people too--many are even women!--and they support the "traditional" family structure, and have lots of evidence to support their stance on that one. What I really love is that they are a pro-woman movement, without being wacko. They attempt to satisfy the beliefs and interests of women who feel amazing about themselves, but don't show that by shouting at men through megaphones. I like their stance on "equality for women":
...
"Equality for Women"
"The issue of equality for women is one with which few women would disagree. There are, nonetheless, different approaches to achieving it. The development of an alternate women's movement, therefore, with a different perspective should not be regarded as a threat, but should be regarded as an advancement for women, in that it reflects the great depth and diversity among Canadian women."
...
Amen, sister!
I HATE when people say that I have a degrading view of a woman's role, because I have right-wing views. Clearly there are strong, right-wing women. Take a 5-minute browse through some of the blogs in my favourites list, and you'll see that. I don't consider myself submissive. I don't consider myself a typical Holly Housewife. I don't consider myself incapable of acheiving what men can achieve (in most fields...I consider myself more capable in some). And yet, here I am writing a right-wing blog. Crazy, I know.
The NP has a pretty good article on REAL Women's 25th. It's interesting because the article interviews Gwendolyn Landolt, the VP of REAL Women, who stresses again and again the importance of the woman's role in society, and also how that role has adapted to modern-day life. Then the opposers to the group are interviewed, who go on about how REAL Women supports and unchanging woman's role in society. Seriously, you can never tell these people anything. Here's an excerpt of the article:
.....
"Boasting a membership of 55,000, supporters and organizers of REAL Women will gather on Saturday at Ottawa's Fairmont Chateau Laurier to discuss such issues as the effect of feminism on Canadian society and to revel in past initiatives they consider to be their group's triumphs.
The group - whose acronym stands for Realistic Equal Active for Life -- was launched as an opposition to the national and provincial Status of Women Councils and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women -- government-funded groups which lobbied for conventional feminist causes, such as abortion, child care, affirmative action.
Gwendolyn Landolt, the vice president of REAL Women and the woman whose name has for years been most closely associated with the groups' initiatives, said those feminist causes and therefore those organizations never spoke for the issues that mattered most to women like her. She said that attendance at her group's rallies and conferences has never been legion, but evidence of their clout has been in the powerful opposition it has provided on such issues as same-sex marriage and government-funded day care."
.....
They're also a pretty classy organization, which is refreshing for a social activist group.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This Jane says...'You GO Girl!'
I agree with your girly views completely. One of the Real Canadian Women I would like to mention in this regard is Farzana Hassan, President of the Muslim Canadian Congress. This courgeous woman puts her life on the line for her beliefs every day of her life. The MCC, founded by the great Canadian, Tarek Fatah, exposes the real agenda of the soft jihadists in our Canadian midst and just how cunning and dangerous they are to Canada. Living under the constant threat of death to herself and her family, Farzana should be celebrated for the strength and hope she provides to the 'imprisoned' women of Islam.
I am happy to count myself as a fan and member of the MCC.
Yeah, this reminds me of the idiots who insist that Sarah Palin isn't a "real woman", just like they insisted that Condoleza Rice isn't "really black". The fact of the matter is that many of the people who today claim to be fighting for "equality" are really fighting for their own ideological interests. That's the nature of revolutionary movements in general - once they've accomplished their goal, they tend to fall apart and become just as oppressive as the system they replaced.
It's good to see some women stepping up and challenging these individuals - I myself have said similar things in the past, but since I'm male they can always turn around and accuse me of sexism. It has a lot more impact coming from women.
"Yeah, this reminds me of the idiots who insist that Sarah Palin isn't a "real woman", just like they insisted that Condoleza Rice isn't "really black"
Whoever said this?
The problem with people like you is that you're always fighting an enemy you've invented yourselves.
Well, here's one example of the former, and here's an example of the latter.
The problem with people like you is that, apparently, you don't know how to use Google. If you had typed your question into a search box instead of wasting space in the comments section, you could have had an answer much sooner.
Alex, good for you on putting links into comments. Now you have to find links that are actually responding to the question.
Your links are to articles by people who don't approve of Palin and Rice respectively. In the case of Rice, the word "real" does not even appear! How would google have found this as you sneeringly allege? In the case of Palin, the writer only mentions "real" women in the context that they are supposed to rally around Palin simply because she is a woman. The author says "Palin is not a woman", which is a rhetorical device. You know, like "Stephane Dion is not a leader". You do get that right? Dion is in fact the leader of his party, to claim he is not is simply untrue. Saying so is a rhetorical device to express the opinion that he is not a good or effective leader.
Similarly, Palin is in favour of abstinence only sex ed, creationism in science class, book banning and opposes abortion for any reason. It would seem these are the exact policies that would encourage keeping many women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. That for many would make them see her as a traitor to women's equality.
I call her "Stockholm Sarah".
Leadership is a skill-set, not a position. If I take some bum off the streets of Toronto and make him the head of the Liberal Party ... well, he'll do a better job than Dion, but he won't be a leader no matter what position he holds.
The problem is that the word "leadership" has multiple definitions, so that we can accurately say that someone who is a leader is not a leader - that a CEO who runs a corporation into the ground does not posses any leadership abilities. The word "woman" on the other hand, does NOT have multiple definitions. Accusing someone of "not being a real woman" is simply sexist and offensive.
Other than that, you're just being stubborn. I can't understand the sort of mindset which can read a sentence like:
"Her [Palins] greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
and still come to the conclusion that the author is not questioning the "woman-ness" of Sarah Palin. That's absurd. I'm not sure that there's any point to me attempting to formulate a rational response, since you quite clearly only see what you want to see. You'll probably read my comment and come to the conclusion that I'm agreeing with you.
Also, your list of things which Sarah is supposedly in favour of is equally ridiculous. I've had my misgivings about her too, because of her inability to say more than 3 sentences without mentioning god, but the things you accuse her of are simply lies, or at best misrepresentations of her actual position. You may as well state that Obama is in favour of Infanticide, is a practicing Muslim, actively encourages illegal immigration, and wants to force everyone to be homosexual. Such accusations would be every bit as accurate as the ones which you just made.
Finally, the idea that Sarah Palins views would result in women being "barefoot and in the kitchen" is utterly ridiculous. We're talking about a successful business woman and politician who is currently running for the second-highest political position in the US. If her personal views would result in women being "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen", then how the f**k did she get where she is? Have you even bothered to read anything at all about this woman, other than the trash-talk over at DU and Kos? You're talking about one of the most successful and energetic women I've ever seen, and you think she wants to oppress women? Are you retarded?
The problem is that the word "leadership" has multiple definitions, so that we can accurately say that someone who is a leader is not a leader
Were you against that view before you were for it? A proof is a proof?
Accusing someone of "not being a real woman" is simply sexist and offensive.
I get called "not a real man" pretty regularly on blogs. Usually because I am not agreeing with some view that "real men" would supposedly agree with. It's not sexist, it's a rhetorical device. I don't need some woman gallantly rushing to my rescue calling out the meanies who say I am not really a man.
Besides, you are still building a straw man by claiming she was called not a "real" woman. The statement you quote is "Her [Palins] greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.". You didn't bother to quote the author's making it clear Palin has a womb and is female gender and all. The author is quite clear that Palin is against the "women's movement", despite having benefited from the battles it has already won.
you quite clearly only see what you want to see.
Unlike, of course, um, you?
You'll probably read my comment and come to the conclusion that I'm agreeing with you.
Condescension is usually a sign you are losing the argument. I thought you were holding up reasonably well. Why are you effectively throwing in the towel now?
Also, your list of things which Sarah is supposedly in favour of is equally ridiculous.
Could we have something more than your pronouncement of ridiculousness? Your authority, at least with me, is insufficient to expect such a pronouncement to be simply accepted.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on which of these these I have erred on:
Does she not favour abstinence only sex ed?
Does she not favour creationism in science class? In her defence, she did say "alongside evolution", but if creationism is to be taught, why not astrology as well?
Did she not discuss book banning with the libarian she later fired?
Does she not oppose abortion for any reason?
Finally, the idea that Sarah Palins views would result in women being "barefoot and in the kitchen" is utterly ridiculous.
Why is that? If you don't have adequate sex education, you are more likely to get pregnant. With criminalized abortion, you will be forced to deliver a baby. "barefoot" is a metaphor for living in ignorance, which is the result of being taught religion instead of science, banned books and banned sex knowledge.
We're talking about a successful business woman and politician who is currently running for the second-highest political position in the US.
Are you counting "helped in her husband's commercial fishing business" as making her a successful business woman? Because I don't think she has actually operated a business herself. Nothing wrong with that, but you are trying to add it to the narrative.
If her personal views would result in women being "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen", then how the f**k did she get where she is?
That's the whole point! It's the hypocrisy that she's being called on. Lots of people can overcome being denied knowledge, lots of girls never get pregnant before they are married, and lots of people rise above the ignorance they are encouraged to live in.
That doesn't make it right that she should actively encourage such conditions to exist.
Have you even bothered to read anything at all about this woman, other than the trash-talk over at DU and Kos? You're talking about one of the most successful and energetic women I've ever seen, and you think she wants to oppress women?
What is DU? What is Kos? I think I have heard of Kos but not DU. Sorry, whatever talking point you are working there doesn't wash. I read about her in the news and there is a wiki page about her.
Of course she is successful and energetic. I'm impressed with her from a demographic point of view. The mom that joined the PTA, then ran for mayor, then Governor. Though I am not a gun guy, I don't have a problem with her being an NRA member or going moose hunting.
It's her views which I consider extreme that I don't like. It's not a matter of "wanting" to oppress women. It's mainly that she doesn't give a damn about other women or the situations they could find themselves in. Not that uncommon from the "kick 'em to the curb" Republicans. No compassion.
Are you retarded?
No, I am not retarded. Seems it's ok to use pejoratives such as that if you're a right winger.
"Were you against that view before you were for it? A proof is a proof?"
...
Do I seriously need to start quoting dictionary definitions, or are you just being a dick for no particular reason?
"Does she not favour abstinence only sex ed?"
No.
"Does she not favour creationism in science class? In her defence, she did say 'alongside evolution', but if creationism is to be taught, why not astrology as well?"
You're preaching to the choir, but once again, no, she does not advocate creationism in science class.
"Did she not discuss book banning with the libarian she later fired?"
She mentioned it in discussion, sure. To go from that to "OMGZORS< DA HITLER-PALIN WANTS TO BAN OUR BOOKS!!!" is a bit of a strech.
Look, I've got my own doubts about Palin. I think she's an amazing woman, and could make a good VP, but I'm also concerned by her religious views. I brought up some of the same points which you did, when I first heard about her. Since then I've had time to do some research, and found that most of those concerns are baseless. I don't particularly feel the need to discuss them with you in detail, especially since I'm about to leave for a long drive back to base. The info's out there - check google, check snopes, just look around. If you aren't totally ideologically indoctrinated, you should be able to find the answers to your concerns, just as I did.
"That's the whole point! It's the hypocrisy that she's being called on."
It would be hypocrisy if she had had abortions in order to further her political career. Seeing as she managed to pump-out 5 kids and still succeed in politics, I see absolutely no hypocrisy in it. She's LIVING what she preaches, so how is that hypocritical?
"Seems it's ok to use pejoratives such as that if you're a right winger."
It's ok to use such pejoratives when you're addressing an individual whose mental capacity is in doubt :)
Sorry, your reply has made it clear that you're an intelligent individual, and I wish I had time to answer you in detail, but like I said, I gotta go. Maybe some other time I can reply in more detail, or we can do it through e-mail.
Oooh Alex. Sounds like you got a crush on. That is sooo liberating!
"liberal supporter":
It appears I was mistaken about Palin's stance on abstinence-only "sex-ed". I seem to remember reading that she favored abstinence "education" in addition to the existing programs, rather than replacing them. When I attempted to verify that, I instead found a whole stack of articles alleging that she was opposed to currently existing sex-ed courses (as is McCain). Thanks for pointing that out - it's definitely a huge strike against her.
Post a Comment