Newsweek articles on feminism

Since I'm doubting any of us has finished the last chapter yet, here's some easier and more current reading on feminism.

Are we there yet? - The headline article about sexism working at Newsweek, in 1970 and now. They bring up the disturbing point that women make 80 cents for every dollar men make (although they didn't cite the study, which always makes me a bit skeptical). I was intrigued by the following two quotes:

"We know what you're thinking: we're young and entitled, whiny and humorless—to use a single, dirty word, feminists! But just as the first black president hasn't wiped out racism, a female at the top of a company doesn't eradicate sexism. In fact, those contradictory signs of progress—high-profile successes that mask persistent inequality—are precisely the problem."

""The U.S. always scores abysmally in terms of work-life balance," says the WEF's Kevin Steinberg. "But even here, [women] still rank 'masculine or patriarchal corporate culture' as the highest impediment to success." Exhibit A: the four most common female professions today are secretary, registered nurse, teacher, and cashier—low-paying, "pink collar" jobs that employ 43 percent of all women. Swap "domestic help" for nurse and you'd be looking at the top female jobs from 1960, back when want ads were segregated by gender."

Feminism or bust (Why young women need feminism) - The author claims that people of her (and my) generation are over feminism and feel that we don't need it (true), but that we do still need it. Unfortunately, she doesn't say where or why, just that sexism is "harder to pinpoint" and when women enter the workforce they feel like "outsiders in a male-dominated club." (I suppose this is because she's assuming you read the previous article.) Personally I've never experienced this, but I've never been outside academia.

My parents' failed experiment in gender neutrality - Though Jesse's parents wanted to raise her genderless, girlie-ness prevailed.

"Since then, of course, countless studies have shown that men and women think and behave differently—to the point that it's not the existence of these differences, but the source of them, that is the subject of any debate." 

I'm always floored when you come across people who haven't realized this.

"Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that's tricky." 

Yes it is! This actually gives me hope, when traditional* feminists and new feminists can agree on problem areas.

So in an attempt to spur discussion (without having to read the articles necessarily), why do you think pay discrepancies still exist? Do you think women are in more "pink-collar" jobs because they like them more, because they are more family-friendly, both, or something else? Have you experienced sexism, particularly in the workplace? Is it possible to completely eradicate sexism? What areas do you think contemporary* feminists and new feminists can agree?



*I'm not sure of the right word to reference feminists who aren't radical but still follow the old-school (that is 70s-80s) platform. There are just so many strands of feminism!

Having it all

I confess, I had a busy weekend and haven't read the next chapter yet. But I just read two articles by Kate Wicker about feminism that I thought might be more interesting to us than the book right now.

I Am Woman was her original article, and she followed that up with a blog post Some Further Thoughts on Feminism, Motherhood, and Having It All.

My favorite quote from the first article was the following:

When we "liberate" women from the "menial" tasks of motherhood, when we suggest a woman loses her life and her identity if she stays home with the kids all day, when we say that women must be fiercer in the workplace or become more "rational" and physically and emotionally "stronger" like their male counterparts, what we're really saying is that men and the male role in society is superior to our own, and we must do everything in our power to become more like them.

Check 'em out and come back with comments!

Man-Bashing

In the comments on my last post Elizabeth asked whether anyone else had noticed the man-bashing. Given the level of discussion, I suspect that many of us are not finding the book worth reading. So here is the short version from pages 155-157 for those who would like to chime in.

Black or white, married women agree that, more than occasionally, the men they most love are, well, just plain impossible. More than once, out of the blue, a woman has said to me, "You know, the trouble with men is that they always want to be with you." And it matters not at all that she is echoing an oft-heard complaint that men file against women.

[cut]

But then, I would have trouble thinking of a woman I know, of any age, class, color, or ethnicity, who has a family and does not consider time alone in her own house a luxury. An old friend of my mother blurted out that her dream was to be alone, pull the shades, strip off her clothes, and eat a pint of ice cream without interruption. Michale, like many other husbands, wants companionship and attention at home--just to have Martha sit next to him to watch the news or something like that. "He really needs that." His desire for her company makes it difficult for her to just shut herself "in the other room and do schoolwork."

Martha recently confessed that one of her pet peeves was Michael's tendency to interrupt without apparent thought to what she might be doing: "It just kills me. I'm busy in the kitchen and he'll see something on television and he'll say, 'Hey, Martha, come here,' as if I'm not doing anything." But if the tables are turned, if he has work to do, "then you've got to leave him alone. You can't go near him." And I have yet to meet a woman of any race at any level of income or education who does not agree. Men just never seem to understand that women need privacy as much as they do.

For as long as anyone can remember, women have had their lists of the ways in which men who claim to be serious adults behave like thoughtless boys. Martha Miller thinks her husband even shops like a boy.

[cut]

Countless women in all income brackets, like their grandmothers and mothers before them, patiently and impatiently share complaints about men's incorrigible thoughtlessness: Men talk through women's silences as if women had no private thoughts; men never assume their full share of domestic responsibilities; men flip the television channel in the middle of something you are watching. But like the many other women who complain knowingly of men's predictable failings, we could not wait to get home, and, to many people's amazement, each of us expected to have dinner waiting for us on the table.

What do you think?

Half-way

We're now more than half-way done with the book and I am still not sure about the point. A few chapters ago I wanted to tear apart E F-G's use of "natural law" as entirely inconsistent with the generally accepted philosophical meaning. The next chapter I wanted to rip into her portrayal of history since she seemed to imply that privileged women having sex before marriage was somehow the result of the feminist movement and sexual revolution. Now I have gotten to the point where I wonder whether the stories in the book even seem real to anyone outside of the Northeast. If the point of stories is to have them resonate in a different way than pure argument, why not tell a wider variety of stories?

But I am trying to see beyond my quibbles to read E F-G's deeper points.

She thinks that the reality of women is captured neither by radical feminists nor the conservatives.

Fair enough.

She thinks that women "never outgrow the need for stories about women's lives" (150). Certainly.

"Feminism is not the story of our lives, but neither is full-time domesticity" (152)

Indeed.

Women are individuals with different hopes and dreams.

Hence the fact that there is not a cohesive story of "our" lives.

Of course I still disagree with E F-G on little points: "Men just never seem to understand that women need privacy as much as they do." (Actually my husband is very good at giving me space) And big ones: sexual freedom contributes to women's danger (then why is it that you were just telling us the stories of the danger in past generations when women had to sleep in separate rooms from their *husbands*?!).

But I can agree with her that marriage and mothering will always be central to women's lives when taken as a whole. So I guess that if that is the point of the book, then I will be more likely to agree than to disagree.

What do you think about the book so far?

Identity, Work and History

Though I'm a bit behind in my reading, the post before this gave me something I wanted to say that was a little too long in comment form. So here's my two cents about Women, Identity, Work and History.

What I think EFG is overlooking is that while the domestic sphere was historical the woman's "vocation" that did not mean a good majority of them did not work. Even 100+ years ago women in families in the lower classes (economic wise) worked even if it was as sewers or lace-maker from their homes. Middle class women were often expected to help out in the family business if that business, sometimes even working away from their husbands or fathers if multiple relatives owned businesses and need assistance. Even if a woman wasn't helping directly, day to day in the stores it was common to find ways to assist the business. As an example even a farmers wife (of which their are many examples from my family) was expected to do a number of chores and before the advent of fast food one of her many "jobs" was to help provide the multiple meals to the men working the fields. Upper classes women often had to run large homes, essentially they were in management - in charge of cooks, butlers, and servants, etc. and that was a job in and of itself (and part of a young woman's training if she was expected to marry to such a life). Also for those in the above the upper classes a woman was not just expected to stay in the home all day cleaning and cooking, especially as the industrial revolution gave her more gizmo's and gadgets to make that part easier. She was expected to be active in her community and church and not be idle.

And lets just admit it, it is easier in the day to day tasks to run a household post 1950's than it was pre-1900's. It just doesn't take as long to wash clothes, run errands or even to cook (though please note I'm not trying to say that homemaking is still an easy job by any means, especially when children enter the picture), so if women have the time to help out financially by working, why should we stop them? I think it's wrong to say that pre-feminist movement (about 1900's) women did not have the desire to have jobs or even careers, but that the facts of day to day survival did not encourage this and we take this for granted because we can do laundry in a couple of hours rather than having to take an entire day, food can be stored in the freezer rather than stored methodically through canning and preservation, clothing come pre-made, etc. etc.

Essentially what I'm getting at is I question if EFG has truly checked all her sources when she starts to make statement that boil down too - "Before the feminist movement a woman's sole sphere was the home", because the history just doesn't back it up when before the advent of cubicles the home was often an integral part of the families business and livelihood and that simply put "women worked" - if we didn't work before the feminist movement why was "equal pay for equal work" such a large component of the earlier feminist movements?

----------------------

And as a last note about women "Believing they must pursue a non domestic career if they expect to be taken seriously" - she is again seems to be ignoring the dualism for modern men, who are made to believe, by our society, that the only worthy vocations are those that are big, important and come with hefty pay checks. How many times have we seen a man looked down upon because they choose an unglamorous vocation that doesn't require a four year degree minimum? God forbid a man who works with his hands be an educated, well intentioned boon to society. How many of us have seen a farmer or a factory work looked down upon and stereotyped as uneducated or low-class even in modern times?

----------------------

I would like to end with an idea to put an idea out there, why can't we respect both aspects of the modern woman's life? I offer myself and a general description of many of the women I've met here as an example -

• I will probably never be a SAHM/W, if I do it will be for a short period of time; in fact I've never had a true desire to be one.
  
• I also do not see myself having a gaggle of children in which to focus 10-15+ years of my life on before they all would start to become self-sufficient.
  
• My husband will never have a big income job; though he is working towards a well paying job that he can be proud of, that job will never pay a lot of money.
  
• And I have non-domestic skills and talents (specifically when it comes to teaching and outreach to teenagers), which I like to think that God gave me to be used in a vocation outside of the home.
  
• At some point in my life I will also be in charge of running a family farm, (I say I here because my husband really has no desire to be a farmer, and I have no intention on selling my families farms) so while I might not be working at a building, will I probably do some kind of work my entire life for a combination of reasons - but mainly out of a desire to do so, whether that desire is to allow my husband to follow a desire job-path without the stress of being responsible for a single income, or to use my talents in the best way I can, etc.
  

Many of the women here have expressed either here or through their personal blogs an innate desire to be a SAHM/W, to raise many children and to lead lives those kind of lives. Some of them have husbands with careers that can easily support this (if not now then in the foreseeable future) or if not who are willing to do what is necessary job/career wise to support this family life choice. They might use their educations in non-direct ways, perhaps through their churches or other non-payed volunteer type routes (I always say an education is never truly wasted). And, though I don't know for certain, it seems like I might alone in the inheritance of land or family owned-business, so they might never have something like that to constantly be in charge of.

So what I'd like to say is why can't we both be respected? EFG seems very intent on trying to figure out which one is superior to the other, and I say why can't we be equal? If I can see and respect the many benefits a truly dedicated SAHM/W can bring to the world, why can't women like me be given the same respect? Not all of us are meant to or have the desire to operate solely in a domestic sphere, but that does not mean we are any less feminine or any less of a woman.

Where do you derive your identity?

Women are taking genuine pleasure in their work, even when it is far from glamorous. They like to be working to get out of the house, to interact with other adults, to earn money they can call their own. ... For years, women got the same sense of accomplishment from presiding over a household and raising children. ... [I]ncreasing numbers of women have come to believe that they must pursue some kind of nondomestic career if they expect to be taken seriously. (pgs121-122)

I'm just throwing this idea out there, and would love to hear your thoughts on it, so please correct me if I'm wrong:  Women nowadays are more likely to work so they have a sense of identity than out of necessity.

Of course there are still a great many women working out of necessity. But I'm wondering if the ones that might not need to (let's say the middle and upper-middle class wives) still feel they must because they wouldn't know what else to do? After all, if they just have 2 kids and they eat out often and their husbands help out a lot around the house, they have fewer domestic duties. They feel like staying at home is a waste of their college education. And what would they say when someone asked what they do for a living?

I bring up that last question because it's really been a sticking point for me. I'm planning to become a SAHM. If someone asks me what I do, how exactly will I answer it? I'm afraid I will inevitably point to my advanced degree as proof that I'm good enough to do other things, but I have intentionally chosen not to. So my identity would be SAHM, with a PhD caveat. (Of course then comes the whole "what a waste of your degree" but I'm not worried about that here.)

So I guess my question is, where do you derive your identity? Is it through work? (I don't think that's an inherently bad thing, BTW.) Is it through relationships or religion? And I guess most importantly, are you happy with that? Do you expect it to change?

Food for Thought -- Carrie Bradshaw

I recently found the blog of Leah Darrow. She was a contestant on America's Next Top Model, and recent re-vert to the Catholic Church. She has a blog called Exposed. I would highly recommend checking it out.

The following article is called: "Carrie Bradshaw: A Relic of Feminism" and I thought it was apt for the subject matter of our little blog, so here's a snippet...

I am a 30 year old woman, single, living in the city, working a full time job, involved with volunteer work, social, outgoing, independent, big fan of mascara and lip gloss, frequently seen running through an airport to catch my flight for a girls weekend away in Mexico and have a committed relationship with all that encompasses “fashion” --- oh, and by the way, did I mention I am a faithful Catholic??
At first glance, it more sounds like a character description of Carrie Bradshaw from none other than Sex and the City but adding the catholic disclaimer is like adding a moral compass to Carrie Bradshaw – and no, this is not a necklace, broach or belt.

and

The space between Carrie Bradshaw and the Church Lady is the New Feminism role that all Christian women are being called to. This is not a theory or an ideology to remain in print and left on a shelf, but this calling is a lifestyle - one that can change the hearts and minds of men, women and children.

Go here to read the rest. She even mentions Helen Alvare, my new hero(ine).

Feminism in Economics

I thought I would try to get on the ball here and actually try to read the book on time for a change. I still find the book kind of hard to read, and I have a difficult time understanding just what EFG is arguing for. Or is she not arguing for anything and is just laying down the history of feminism as she sees it? I'm still a little lost on that point.

I may not have enjoyed reading this chapter that much, but I think that the topic is a really important one to discuss. One of the things that I thought that was interesting in the general tone of the chapter was the general idea of how men and women were doing competitively in the job market. There was almost an idea of who's beating who and by how much, and is the gap closing even further. There's also the idea of women needing to work so they can be free of their dependence on men.

That stuff right there is all of the stuff that I don't particularly like about feminism. This idea that we are pitted against men, or at the very least that we have to be able to be free from them is sort of crazy to me. To me, we are in this together as a human race. I don't like women trying be free from men as in this chapter, or from children as in the previous chapter. I think that seriously takes away from what it means to be a woman.

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the advances that have been made allowing women to have more access to the work force. As a single woman, I'm glad that I can support myself and that I was not limited to choices as a secretary, a nurse or a teacher. As much as I hate the fact that it's necessary, I also appreciate that married women have more options open to them for work as well. I think that there are times that a second income is not as necessary as we make it out to be, but there are definitely times that it is absolutely needed as well.

I guess from the standpoint of someone who leans more towards the idea of a "New Feminism" (though I admit to not fully understanding all that entails either), I think that figuring out the role of women in the workplace and how to balance that with family life is one that falls to us. I think that it is already happening in a lot of places that women are working less so that they can be home with their children more. Not just as SAHM's, but also as people working part time or shorter hours. I don't think that there is any one answer to how much a woman should work, because it's going to vary a lot depending on every family's need. Personally, I can't say much about the balance, since I sort of focus on my job as a default. What are everyone's thoughts about how we can try to be women working and balancing family at the same time?

Sexual Revolution

This chapter solidified my position on Feminism.  I have felt from as early as my teens that contraception and abortion were the reasons I couldn't call myself a Feminist, even though I believe in equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunities for women in academia, work, etc.  I find myself saddened by the fact that I don't want to identify with something that could have been (and was at one point in time) a good for society.


I believe that even though an action is commonplace does not then make it a good action.

Just because women were quietly/secretly having premarital sex even before the Sexual Revolution, does not mean it was good.

And just because it is now accepted and even expected that women engage openly in premarital sex after the Sexual Revolution, it does not mean it is good.

Encouraging the behavior by normalizing the behavior seems to only have added more heartache than not.  We have a society filled with girls who have no self-esteem, who believe their worth to a male companion is measured in her willingness to put out.  What is really sad is that many girls have been taught to believe that they ARE confident and they DO have self-esteem BECAUSE they engage in sex outside of marriage.

Instead of building up our boys and girls to respect themselves enough to live a chaste life, we do not expect this of them.  Instead our teachers, parents, doctors...hand them condoms or birth control pills (things that fail over and over) and say under their breath, "Well, kid...just don't get (her) pregnant"  And this literally validates this expectation that they will or even should engage in sexual behavior before marriage.

It's a vicious cycle we have created for ourselves.  It's unfortunate.  I pray like crazy every single day that my husband and I will be able to impress upon our children their worth, their prized possession of their chastity...that they will believe they are worth waiting for.  And yes...I know we are fighting an uphill battle.  But I believe it is possible.  I have seen it.  I am encouraged by the families that we know in our prayer circles who are having success in this matter.  They are absolutely counter-cultural in the ways they lead their children through courtship...but it is beautiful the results they have seen.

One word about Abstinence education because surely someone will come along and remind me how "unrealistic" I am on it.  I believe Abstinence Education, as it stands, does not work because the adults teaching it are not credible.  Kids are very perceptive (especially at the age when sex education is taught in most schools) and they can tell that the people telling them to remain abstinent don't believe that they can do it.  And since that underlying message is there...they do not believe they can do it either.

Chapter 4

This chapter was sort of like a horrific car wreck to me. I was both highly disturbed and fascinated by it, all at the same time. My blood pressure was through the roof at times, but my curiosity got the better of me and kept me reading.

I think what fascinated me the most was the discussion of our new-found sexual freedom as women. Finally, we have sexual freedom like men do. I know I can be terribly naive at times, but all I could think is that if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?

I know, I know. The men could have it and not be judged, whereas their women were no longer acceptable in society. Well, in that case, why "free" the women to act like the men? Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?

You know, I don't like the sexual repression that denied the deep hunger for love that lies within all of us. But neither do I like unrestrained sex. There has to be some discipline because sex is a very beautiful and very powerful thing. Fireworks are beautiful when they are used safely and correctly, but dangerous as all get out when used without respect for their power.

I don't know if EFG was trying to help us figure out how we should define this new morality that we find ourselves in. I have to admit that I think that the idea of trying to redefine morality to fit our newfound sexual freedom is ridiculous. It's not as though we as Americans used to have one morality and now we have a different one. That's really not up for debate any more than the laws of science are. We are created as we are created. Ignoring that will not make it go away.

Here's how I see it. The sexual repression of the previous generation was an anorexia of sorts. Like if they tried to deny the need it would go away. Of course, the constant denial can lead to a binge/purge cycle with sex as well. The sexual revolution decided that sex was good, and that any sex we wanted was good, so let's go with it all. Like a glutton spiraling towards disastrous obesity. Both are deadly to the body, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think that we can play games with sexuality and end up any better.

Finally!!!

I finally, finally, FINALLY, have my copy (looong story, very boring) and can now join in the fun!! I have been trying so hard to not read any posts so I wouldn't spoil any of the book and now I can catch up and join!! I am so sorry for my absence! Yeah, book club, here I come!!

Chapter 4 - Eugenics Gets One Sentence

I'm actually not really enjoying chapter 4 so far. I mean, I agree with the main points Mrs. F-G is making, but frankly, I am tired of reading and thinking about abortion. As a woman who is struggling to get pregnant, and would like nothing better than to be a mother, I have little patience for arguments from people whose claims work like this: A "fetus" is a human being if it's parents or someone else wants it (adoption), but it's not a human being if "no one" wants it and/or it was conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or has "something wrong with it".

I got seven pages into the chapter (pg. 89) when I had to stop reading because I was throwing up a little bit in my mouth. The reason? Well, what else makes one throw up in their mouth other than moral relativism?

"One woman captured the attitudes of many: "I would say my views are true for me, but I can't put that on someone else. I just can't force my truths on other people." How cosmopolitan and liberated of her. Us poor Christian bumpkins sure could learn a thing or two from her about the truth, huh?

"Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." Oh well then, if that's just how she feels, we have to let her walk away with an inconsistent viewpoint about when and how its o.k. to kill human beings, right? I mean, if that's how she feels, she must be correct. *facepalm*

And following right on the heels of the above quoted gem, is this beauty: "Some admitted - privately - that concerns about overpopulation by "poor" and "minority" children influenced their views." Gosh, folks, don't be shy about your desire to eradicate the poor and people of color. No, seriously. You're in good company. Margaret Sanger, you know, the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, said some similar things.

"Such class-consciousness points to one important reason for promoting birth control for the unfit -- the burden they place on what Sanger, in Pivot, called "the normal and healthy sections of the community." She claims that the healthy classes unduly bear the costs of "those who should never have been born." Indeed, Sanger's movement only took off when the wealthy elite, including the eugenic Rockefeller Foundation, rallied to her side." -Angela Franz

Here is the above quoted article attesting to the same attitude of eugenics and social control by Ms. Sanger and her organization.

Also, this is a short video clip from a longer documentary called Maafa 21, which was created to raise awareness within the African-American community about the eugenic motives of Planned Parenthood. (This is just one clip of about 15.)





Something funny happened on the way through chapter 4: eugenics got one sentence. Perhaps it is because the initial aims of the Sanger/Planned Parenthood movement were birth control and not abortion, Mrs. F-G didn't want to spend any time discussing the eugenic spirit alive and well in these United States. But I'd say that if there are people responding to a study that they support abortion because there are too many poor and minority people, that's cause for alarm. And perhaps, for more than just one sentence.

Why don't we have anything to say about this chapter?

Until Sarah and Kay posted last night, there were no discussions about this chapter. I was trying to figure out why.

It may be that we've just hit a bit of a lull in the club (maybe we should read more than a chapter a week?) but I suspect it's more a combination of (a) some disappointment in the book so far and (b) we've heard it all.

It's not that my blood wasn't pumping when I read it - whenever I hear about the sexual revolution I get fired up. And yet, while it left me upset, I didn't feel like I had anything noteworthy to say. It's not like I learned anything new. Here's hoping the next chapter has more blog fodder!

Chapter 3 - Shocking and Barbaric

So, I guess I'll break the ice on this week's chapter...

One thing in particular that stood out to me (and I'm sure many of you, as well), was the story of the African American man in South Carolina who, upon discovering his unwed daughter was pregnant, proceeded to lock her in a room and isolate her from her sisters until she went into labor. When her labor started, he refused to call a doctor and the outcome of her hours of seemingly painful labor was a stillborn child and her bleeding to death (pg 61). Talk about barbaric! Not only is the man's daughter dead, but her child is dead, as well.

Although EFG doesn't give a year for this incident, it is presumed to be pre-1960s. The father's motive for this act was reportedly to retain the family's "honor"(?!). Honestly, I'd be curious to hear what happened to the father. I wonder if the family's honor remained intact after his neglect led to two deaths.

Now, enter the question of abortion. Although this incident is presumed to have happened in a time when abortions were not legal, given that the family was of middle-class standing, they would likely have been able to afford an abortion that would have prevented this outcome. They may or may not have chosen this option and the woman may or may not have wanted to give birth to and/or raise the child, but, in any event, the availability of the abortion option, not to mention the greater independence of women that came to be after the feminist movement could have resulted in a very different, and quite possibly more pleasant outcome for this woman.

Video on New Feminism

I found this video of Catholic law professor Helen Alvare , discussing the New Feminism. I know this isn't directly from the book, but I am sure that it is relevant.

I'd love to embed it here, but I don't know how to embed on blogger, so here's the link to the video. I promise it's worth looking at (and about 5 mins. long).

(Edit by Elizabeth - I embedded the video. To do it on blogger, click on the "embed" button to the right of the video on YouTube and copy/paste the code into the post, from the "edit HTML" tab.)



What you think of New Feminism? How do you think Mrs. E F-G would view this video?

Growing Up Feminine -- 20 Years Later

I read all of chapter 2, waiting for her to get to the really good stuff. Then I realized that the chapter was over. Oops. My initial reaction, which I wrote in the margins at the end said, "This chapter is dated, re: lipstick feminism". The point has been made by several other ladies here that the research and information in this book is dated, so I don't think I have to prove myself on that claim. However, I'd like to mention the one part of the chapter that I thought was really interesting, before I talk about what I *wish* had been in this chapter. What I wish she said about being feminine in 2010.

In talking of Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, E F-G touches on what I felt to be one of the only points from this chapter that still feels like it makes sense in light of the experience of feminism and femininity that I had growing up, and more importantly, that my generation has had since 1996 (when I was in 6th grade and this book came out).

"Wolf echoes the complaints of generations of feminists who, from Mary Wollstonecraft to the present, has criticized the ways that feminine fashion keeps women in thrall to men. Simone deBeauvoir, in The Second Sex, especially deplored women's disadvantage in a culture in which they must always look young and beautiful, while men could grow old in the security that the character and power etched on their faces would only enhance their appeal to the opposite sex." (39)

I read that and thought, yeah! Look at drastic increase in things like botox and plastic surgery, or just that often the mothers of teenagers look like teenagers themselves. I wish this chapter had explored some of the implications of what's called "lipstick feminism" or "sex and the city feminism" for lack of a better term. It's this kind of "feminism" which I think was trying to revive the ideals of feminism, but make them more palatable to women who like to shop, wear makeup, and wouldn't ever dream of going braless outside of their house.

The tagline is all about "empowerment". It's supposed to be empowering to be both sexually aggressive and disdainful of men at the same time. I'm not entirely sure who it is supposed to be empowering though. I say that because I used to live that. I bought into this idea of feminism which suggests that real "freedom" is the ability to sleep with anyone you'd like, at any time, for any reason, regardless of whether or not you even know or care about the man. Something I heard in college that I really internalized for many years was this: "Men should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable." Your girlfriends are your loves, the ones who know your heart; men are just people you have sex with." How many women of my generation have taken this to heart?

While the pendulum has swung from "let's all wear flannel and drive fork-lifts and who needs a man" feminism to "let's all walk around half-naked and use men for sex while wearing skirts and heels" feminism, I don't think that the latter is an improvement over the former.

What I'd love to see is a feminism, and a femininity that allows women to be women. Who sometimes like to wear dresses or skirts, or who always love them, or who can't stand them. Who sometimes wear makeup, or always wear makeup, or hate to wear makeup. Who understand that there are more important things in life than lipstick, and 500$ handbags, and putting yourself first. But who also understand that there is something irreplaceable about the feel of a summer sundress and that "just came from the salon" sensation.

In essence, what I'm advocating for is a type of religious feminism. One that helps women to see that their value and dignity as women comes not from their waist size, or hair color, or shoe style, but from being made in the image of God, as a woman. That's true femininity. Everything else, all of the makeup, and dresses, and all of it, is just icing on the cake. Pretty icing. Fun icing. Icing that is an avenue for bonding among women. But icing just the same.

That's what I wish this chapter had been about.

Why I Do Not Feel Like I Identify With Feminism

Before I get into the meat of this post, I wanted to say that I was quite taken with the perspective of the African-American women she talks about.  I think the fact that they see Feminism as a "white woman's issue" is very telling.  Much of the things Feminism fought for from the beginning, ALL African-Americans had been fighting for their entire history.  Their impression of it being a "white woman's issue" left the impression with me that white women most likely look like whiners to them.  Obviously, they'd never put it that way...but I can see the point of view of select African-American woman, viewing the "cause" of Feminism from the outside and thinking, "Well, sisters...buck up and get to work...don't wait on society to hand you what you want.  We (African-American women) learned long ago that it's up to US to work hard to make a life and not wait for so-called 'equality.'"

Personally, I identified on all three points with the following from page 10: 

"For the Catholics among them, it (Feminism) stands for a defense of abortion, which they cannot accept.  For many of the women, as well as the men, it stands for an attack on men that threatens them directly or threatens their husbands, boyfriends, or sons.  For most, it is simply irrelevant to the pressing problems of managing life from day to day."

I am Catholic, but that is not necessarily the only reason I cannot accept abortion.  Long ago, I came to the pro-life stance and NOT just because the Catholic Church said so.  My Catholic faith has helped me solidify my understanding and provided me the fortitude and strength of heart to realize abortion is never the answer even with so-called exceptions.  I lived the attack on men she mentions. 

And these days, Feminism and all it stands for is not applicable to my life.  I have a job.  I understand that the slowness in ascension in ranks CAN be attributed to the fact that I have taken maternity leave, continued to have children past what is considered "the norm" and am reluctant to proclaim myself "done."  I would never take the trade-offs offered to be equal with men in my career because being available to my family is too important to me. 

I was raised to be pro-life by my parents (though my mother remains fairly flimsy when it comes to certain aspects) and I was mildly pro-choice as a young adult. As soon as I began taking the stance for personal responsibility, I moved to the pro-life side of the aisle. When I became stronger in my faith, I parked myself firmly in that camp (no longer support any abortions…even for “exceptions”).



My parents also raised me to be anti-contraception…in their actions if not in their words (who had parents back then that talked about that stuff??) After they had my older brother and before they conceived and had me, they used an IUD. But by the time I was aware of anything, they were faithfully practicing Catholics at least with regard to contraception. And I had three younger siblings as evidence.


My parents divorced when I was 8. Looking back over the way I grew up and the decisions I made, it is so evident to me that I needed my dad. I was under a constant barrage of attacks against my father, though.  My mother read all the Feminist books of the 70s - The Feminine Mystique; Passages, and she spouted much of the regular talking points about Feminism, outside of the abortion issue.  My mother often attacked the Catholic church for their "patriarchy" and made regular attacks on my father and my older brother.  She regularly told me that I didn’t need my dad. She told me my dad didn't love me and that when Dad divorced her, Dad divorced us.  That we were throwaways.  She told me that I should never need a man…and that I needed to be completely independent.

As a result of these attacks, I came to believe certain things about men that impacted my relationships negatively:  1)  Men are scum (yes…my mother called my dad "scum."  She called all men "scum."  Then, when convenient, she turned the attack into an attack on my older brother by saying, "You are just like your dad!") 2)  Men and are (chauvinist) pigs (yes…my mother called my dad that, too.  Actually, usually it was "Men are pigs" or "Your dad is a pig"...but sometimes the chauvinist qualifier was thrown in for emphasis.) 3)  The only thing men care about is getting between your legs (yes, sadly, she said this about my dad, too.)  I grew up to believe that men were incapable of love.

My relationships with boys and men were severely affected by this experience.  As a teenager, when dating, I allowed boys to use me and I tried to use them. Growing up, I never believed my dad when he would tell me he wanted me and he loved me. I didn’t trust the men I had relationships with. I was in all of my relationships with men FOR MYSELF (because men had nothing worthy to offer me, I believed). I would take what I could gain from the relationship and never trust the man in the relationship to really care…he always had ulterior motives.

My impression of men had become, over the years, was that men were animals incapable of making decisions about anything due to their insatiable desire for sex.  So, for the sake of escaping a life full of loneliness, I acquiesced.  My mother could have been a talking head for the Feminist mentality.  She often told me that sex was a necessary evil…if you wanted companionship, you were going to have to have sex…it wouldn’t be glorious, but you’d keep your man and probably have a couple kids along the way. 

To be honest, my mother has often been a schizophrenic influence because her actions said one thing and her mouth another. She is still that way...for example before she married her current husband, she behaved one way politically and socially...and by a few years after their marriage, she was back to the man-hating, feminist-minded speech I had always heard growing up...only now she applied it generally and not specifically. (As an adult, I put a stop to her barrage of attacks on my father in her presence. She was not happy that I didn't share her opinion and even now, I often have to cut her off and tell her that I won't allow it.)



I can't remember if I responded on the post about relationships with mothers or not.  And I realize this post is mother-daughter-relationship-heavy.  But to understand why I believe Feminism means what it does, I feel the information is relevant. 

In some respects, the life I live is proof of the success of the Feminist movement.  I have a worthy career.  I am in management.  I make a fair wage and I have been able to grow my family and keep a job (even though the growth has slowed through my child-bearing/rearing.)

In other respects, the life I live defies the Feminist movement.  I am staunchly against abortion for any reason.  I believe the use of contraception and sterilization is immoral to control the growth of family size.  I put my family...specifically the needs of my children above my own personal career growth.  And in this case, it is where I find Feminism, in its current state as irrelevant.

So, that is where I am after reading Chapter 1.  I hope to be in on the game a little sooner next week!

Dear Ladies

Hello all.

I love, love, LOVE reading all your wonderful posts. Unfortunately, I doubt I will have a lot of time to add my two cents. I have a lot of stuff weighting on my heart and mind lately and I barely have the time or energy to do anything. (I'll fill y'all in later on my personal blog.)

I will however continue to follow this blog closely and contribute when I can. I want to put the Ladies Who Blog Book Club button on my own blog, but I forgot how!

Anyways, you ladies are such an inspiration and I love reading your thoughts. You have no idea how bummed out I am that I can't get more involved! I can't wait to keep reading your thoughts!

God bless you wonderful ladies!

What does "feminist" mean to you?

Having long identified myself as a feminist, the first chapter of EFG's book got me thinking: what does it mean for me if I identify with a movement whose public image, among other things, I can't control? If supporting abortion rights is really the "limitus test" (12) of feminism, I don't think I would pass their test. If denying my desire to be attached in matrimony to a man and produce a family is intrinsic to their cause, I don't think I would pass. If working for sexual freedom is the test, I don't think I would pass. Now that I step back and think about it hard, perhaps there are only a few ways in which I would truly fit in with EFG's so-called feminists. I passionately believe in feminism, and I don't believe that the areas in which I disagree with them should exclude me from the group; neither do I believe that I should allow my voice to be silenced within that group because I don't fall in hook, line, and sinker.

I think it comes down to how we understand and live the word "feminist." I believe in feminism founded in faith; my Catholicism has a causal relationship with my feminism. This comes from believing that self-sacrifice (not submission) is a central tenant of Christianity: Matthew 16:24 says "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Working for social justice and the ability to care for my loved ones are part of my feminism—both require Christian self-sacrifice. How do we improve a woman's position in the world? By allowing her to be responsible for herself and her family. A woman, no less than a man, should have this ability if she so chooses. I believe that feminism should support social policies to help women gain social and economic equality so that they may care for themselves and their families. Whether or not I am pro-choice, I don't believe women need sexual freedom to be able to gain these equalities. We should be able to support ourselves and our babies with our wages, regardless of our options to engage in sexual or reproductive "freedom." EFG raises the question of whether modern feminism has really dealt with these issues of social and economic equality. I think the obvious answer is "no." In focusing on providing a few women with the sexual and reproductive "freedom" they desire, we have neglected the needs of many more women to simply care for themselves and their families.

I think the feminism that my generation has been exposed to is a little bit "girl power" and a lot Sex and the City. We were told that we could sleep with anyone we wanted to and look beautiful (read: scantily clad) while doing so. I believe that women would profit far more from strong marriages, families, and communities than from these so-called freedoms. Implementing true social justice would bring us closer to these ideals, which clearly support women respecting themselves rather than being independent agents with the sexual and reproductive freedoms that in reality bring them down.

The truth of the matter is, none of the women EFG interviewed saw themselves as isolated, independent agents. Women have interlocking lives—interlocking with men, children, extended families, their communities, and the larger global community of women to which they belong. In choosing an exclusive idea of "correct" feminism, radical feminists have marginalized themselves and their movement. The word "feminist" has the potential to mean a great deal to a great many people, but falls short of this goal. Women should not feel ostracized from the larger feminist movement because they do not embrace 100% of its causes; instead, it should be a more inclusive term conditioned upon agreement about certain tenants (e.g. social and economic improvement), thereby making it the story of our lives. If feminism is truly about seeking social and economic justice for women, it needs to start making itself accessible as a movement to both the community of women and the communities to which women belong within their marriages, families, and geographic areas. Nobody is going to go in for everything that feminism espouses, but in changing how feminism is perceived and making it less of what EFG calls a "single formula," they could perhaps gain more man power (no pun intended...or was it?) behind their efforts.

Little thoughts

A few little things struck me as I was reading this, but after enjoying the other three great posts on this, I didn't think any of my thoughts deserved a full post! So I just thought I'd throw the following out there, and ask if any of you also picked up on these, or on any other little bits?

"Women who still see marriage and children as central to their sense of themselves have retreated from feminism because they do not believe that feminists care about the problems that most concern them or because they believe that feminists favor policies they cannot support, such as abortion, affirmative action, or women in combat." (page 17, emphasis mine)

I totally didn't realize affirmative action was seen as a feminist concern - I only thought of it as applying to racial minorities. Duh. Also, I have to say that I've never really thought much about women in combat. (I could possibly be swayed into feeling stronger one way or the other if I heard a really good argument.) Isn't it interesting how these major concerns have for the most part been dealt with and we don't even think of them?

"Her father, who came out of the WASP elite... has nothing but admiration for her ambition and determination." (page 19)

I know we mentioned mothers' influences earlier, but it's also interesting to see how fathers have influenced and responded to their daughters' feminist lifestyles! I kind of hope she approaches this stuff later in a more thorough fashion.

"[Feminist indifference] permits them to argue, however unrealistically, that poor women should begin by respecting marriage and postponing children until they have a husband. They do not believe that poor women need or want the things that feminists advocate for them, and they fear that feminists are encouraging poor women to behave irresponsibly." (page 28)

This struck me because I have thought this. I'm not really sure that I have anything succinct to say about this, but was hoping someone else might be able to explain to me the details of why it's wrong?

Late Addition Alison!

Hello all!
I'm extremely sorry for my tardiness, but I'm hoping I can just pass this off as "fashionably late". I asked to join a little bit late and ordered my book late as well, but I just got my book today so now I can catch up! Yahoo!

So to introduce myself (and then its on to catch up by reading all the other posts), my name is Alison and I'm currently a graduate student about a year or so out from graduating. I'm also recently married (a little over a year ago - my how time flies!). My husband and I are actually both graduate students so we're slogging through this marathon together right now.

Umm...what else is interesting about me? I'm a military brat, with the longest place I've ever lived being my current residence, Texas, and home for the past 7 years. My husband is not from Texas although he's learning to love it :) We just recently bought a home and would love to expand our family anytime God thinks fit. Which is apparently involving more patience that originally anticipated!

About 4 years ago I finally began giving serious thought to those important questions in life, you know, the ones I'd tried my best to ignore for most of college, the ones that would require accountability. But I had to on account of feeling completely lost and not understanding why I was so unhappy (and believe me, while it was a very painful process, it needed to happen). Although it wasn't until over a year later that I became Catholic, I threw away my birth control as sort of a "put my money where my mouth is" dare to myself a few weeks after I finally came to the secular realization that sexual activity before I was married was not helping me in my pursuit of happiness (with eventual plans to pick it back up again once I was married of course...I wasn't THAT crazy! ahem). That was my first step in realizing that maybe this thing I had known as "feminism" wasn't helping us women out as much as we/they had hoped. Several months later I began to see the theological side and learn about why biologically I had been tricking myself before. Eventually (after much study and prayer) I embraced all of what the Catholic Church teaches and I am still amazed that it all started with one of today's most controversial teachings.

Today my husband and I both teach NFP in our Diocese. I truly believe it was a grace from God that I was able completely see, understand and lovingly accept his plan for our sexuality and I think its the least I can do to I share it with those I can.

Anyway, I hope to learn a lot from this book and the discussions with all of you!

For Whom the Book is Written

At the end of the chapter E F-G writes that the book is written for those who believe that "feminism has no answer for the women's issues that most concern them." The problem is that it does not work to expect average women who are genuinely disenchanted in feminism to pick up a book with feminism in the title**. It seems likely that, regardless of how E F-G imagined her audience, she could not help but to write for those who surrounded her: her colleagues and women's studies students.

When I think of the book that way, it makes a lot more sense. Thinking of the book as written for other feminists, I can see how E F-G would expect her audience to care about why people do not care about feminism. I can also understand E F-G's tone better. Why would she exclude the stories of women who *do* see feminism as relevant unless she is following the pattern of arguing only one side in a group of women who all argue one side (in the same way that lawyers do) rather than with careful noting of exceptions (in the way that I am used to professors and other academics writing for those who do not specialize in their subject). It seems as if E F-G has lived a life very similar to that of the feminists of organizations such as NOW, and so she takes the same all-or-nothing perspective.

And viewed that way, the book seems quite helpful. Instead of wondering why E F-G ignores this or that, I am busy wondering how her book actually influenced her peers including those who taught me. I took a class with one of the women she mentions in the preface, a woman who is quite different from E F-G, and who is quite aware that many American women do not identify as feminists. She was quite a balanced professor (though obviously liberal & open about her life and work with the ACLU etc) and talked a lot about the differences among American women in their fight to better women's lives. She fought against the ERA and never considered that one must support it in order to be a feminist as E F-G implied.

Now I realize that the very inclusiveness which I associate with uber-academic feminism may very well have been shaped by books such as this which provided a wake-up call to feminists. I do not think that the book (so far) works as important material for those not already engaged with feminism, but it may actually have been a part of what shaped those who gave me such a positive view of feminism.

Do you think that I am wrong in thinking that this book was written for other feminists (albeit unintentionally)? Would you give this book to a typical friend who did not think that feminism had any relevance to her life, or do you also see it as more relevant to those who already care about studying feminism?

**So I think that a lot of us owe our reading of this to Elizabeth and Sarah. Thanks for broadening my horizons and getting me to read something which I found vaguely interesting but would not have otherwise made the time for!

Definitions ans Boxes

Oh Mrs. F-G you'd get a big red pen mark on if this was an essay in any of my English classes all over Page 12! She talks of the definition of the word Feminism, and how it's wrong to support a cause that you might not support 100%, but she doesn't get to the root of the definition.

The definition of Feminism from the dictionary is this
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

In it's basic form there is no idea of feminists must believe everything a feminist group believes. If we use this basic definition of the word, her argument falls through. I can call myself a feminist based on that definition and not believe everything every feminist or anti-feminist group believes.

And I would argue further with her, that call yourself by such a label does not mean you support everything everyone else does under that label. To be a Republican or Democrat you do not have to support every single bill and idea. If you subscribe to a religion you do not have to support everything the majority of Catholics, Muslims, etc. subscribe to in order to call yourself a part of that group.

My biggest issue with her logic is also on page 12.
"More than any other single issue, support for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion has become the litmus test of feminism. Feminists, must by definition, support the right, and, according to feminists, anti-feminists oppose it. ... Do feminists believe that feminism has no room for pro-life women even if they support equal pay for equal work and related women's issues? Apparently it does."

Then she goes on to tell about the Group Feminists for Life being left out of a protest, etc.
So here it goes:
Problem 1: "Feminists, must by definition..." Who's definition, she's not given us a solid definition. I've given you the dictionaries definition and no where does it say a "Feminists must support abortion"
Problem 2: The long functioning group "Feminists for Life" proves that feminism has room for "pro-life women even....", especially since that group is growing in its popularity and scope today. In fact one of the arguments of FforL is that true feminism, the first wave of the movement, did not support abortive rights.
Problem 3: Mrs. F-G just makes a lot of sweeping generalizations about what a feminists "must" do or be.

So my first reaction was that Mrs. F-G wants to have a singular definition of the word in order to call herself one of them, rather than accepting that the word itself needs to be fluid and allow each person to make it their own. We can accept that a white, middle class mother of four's definition of feminism will be different that of a single woman, a minority, or a woman with disabilities and still give them the opportunity to call them selves feminists under the basic definition of the word. Just because one group or another expands on this basic idea does not mean that all of us have to accept it. By using her logic of what a feminists "must believe" is like saying all Christians MUST believe everything those famous televangelists believe or that all Republicans MUST support every belief of every member the party, and this is not true.

So my response to this chapter is "Since when does feminism have to live in a little box?" It seems that is different peoples attempts to do so (from radical feminists to radical anti-feminists) is what gives the word feminism such a bad taste in their mouths.

The Feminist List

On page 15, EFG wrote out a list of the things that she seemed to see as the goals of the then-fledgling feminist movement. I found myself going through the list thinking "yes" or "no" to each of the things that she brought up. Here's where I fell:

Woman's "right" to have an abortion. I think the quotation marks tell you where I stand on this. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed in order to support women who are pregnant in difficult situations; however, I do not believe that it is right to ever purposefully take the life of a child.

Equal pay for equal work. Okay. I agree with this, who wouldn't? There are a lot of issues to consider here as well. For example, I don't know how great the disparity is right now, but would it make any difference to consider maternity leave? Would that close the gap at all?

A married woman's right to keep her name. This just doesn't seem like something that's really worth fighting over. I can't help but think there is a reaction here to a time where perhaps men did not acknowledge the personhood of their wives. Maybe? Did that happen? Otherwise, why would it be such a big deal? Personally, I'm a fan of my name and it is a large part of my identity. If I ever get married, I will miss it. However, I will gladly give it up. It is a way to unify us as a family.

Women's equal access to credit. Yeah, sure. Although maybe 2008 demonstrated a little too much access to credit all around, hmm?

No-fault divorce. Umm, in what way could this possibly advance the cause of women?

A lot of these things do not seem to me to help women at all. Especially abortion rights and no-fault divorce. It may give women more options, but it also gives men a greater chance to have other excuses out of their responsibilities.

Where do the rest of you fall on these issues?

Uncomfortable and Afraid

Those are the two words I wrote at the end of the preface to describe how I was feeling.  And frankly, I think that is a good thing.  It means this book will challenge me.  It will challenge me to consider and possibly reconsider my beliefs and the whys behind them.

What are you feeling?

Preface Thoughts -- Who Said We Could Have It All?

In reading through the preface to the book, I was struck by one paragraph in particular:

"Today, women's lives are more important to society and more complicated than ever. The media bombard us with images of women who dash from job to children to kitchen, juggling the demands with cool grace. Most women do not find the juggling easy, especially when the demands take the form of demanding employers and sick or unhappy children. Many women want rewarding work even as they cherish traditional family values. Many want to be respected as competent workers even as they continue to enjoy the pleasures of femininity. Most cherish their independence even as they want binding ties to a man and children. The women to whom I have been listening do not want to sacrifice one side of their lives to another, but living with the tensions has taught them that no one can "have it all"(3).

This fact, which women who have a career and children (I have neither!) can probably appreciate more than I, is sad but true. No one (not even men) can have it all. Not if they want to be a good parent and a good employee. Hard choices have to be made. As Christians we should know this all the more. Jesus did not ever say, "Amen I say to you, I came so that you all might have an easier time of it!"

Where did we pick up the idea that we are entitled to the world, or that, if we try to have it all, it shouldn't be tremendously hard? Perhaps the Feminist movement, particularly that of the 1960's and 70's?

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that women should not work outside the home if that is what is best for them and their families. I am not saying that women deserve to have terrible lives if they choose to have career and family. But what I am saying is that, something has got to give. It is the rare woman who can balance career, marriage, and children and come out a winner on all three fronts. The 1960's Feminist movement told us it would help us with that. They said they would make childcare more equitable, so that women could pursue work outside the home. They said they would tenaciously advocate for equal pay for equal work; then women would make more money, men wouldn't have to work so hard, and household duties could be distributed more evenly. Well, here we are 40 years later, and women still do the majority of household tasks and earn 71 cents for every male dollar.

But look at the bright side, we have earned ourselves the equal right to a 70 hour work week!

It seems to me like E F-G is making the point that somewhere along the line, the Feminist elite lost sight of what it is women want most; to figure out how to juggle all these things. They don't want to be told that the solution is to ignore their husbands and children (or worse yet, have neither), but to see other women who are genuine advocates for the choices women make based on what's best for them and their families.

Though her research is dated I think E F-G's overall point is still valid. I am interested to see how she will develop this claim further, and also what solutions to the still unanswered question of "Who will raise the children?", she comes up with.

What do you all think? Is it possible to "have it all" while keeping career, marriage, and children healthy? How can we provide real solutions for women, ones that accept that *most* women want husbands, children, and careers?

Some changes...

to the blog, as you can see :) I designed this humble template and am no expert, so please let me know of anything that is missing/wrong, as well as any other suggestions! Also, I had to re-do the profile listing in the right sidebar, so double-check to make sure a) you're on there, b) I spelled your name the way you want it shown, and c) the link goes to the profile of your preference!

Thanks, all! :D

Generation Information

I found it interesting reading some of what she says so far from the viewpoint of a few generations under her and am reminding myself that she is writing this from HER generations view and experience with Feminism which (IMHO) is different than my generations view on Feminism.

If I can make a generalization I feel that Generation Y's view on Feminism is a little more mellow and encompassing than her's (Mrs. F-G was born in 1941, not techincally a baby boomer, but a part of the Silent Generation) which seemed to be marked with the development of more of the radical stances of feminism. Because of this as I've started reading Chp 1 I already find myself saying, "No that's not how it is for me and my age range." and "That's not how we all think of x,y and z" so I wonder if this book is actually applicable toward people in their 20's/early 30's in 2010 (info: the book was originally copyrighted in 1996, 14 years ago).

Mrs. F-G would have been dealing with the rise of 2nd wave feminism as a teenager and young adult, right in the prime (and perhaps most persuasive time) of her life and I wonder if she doesn't look back on her old Feminist opinions the way some of us look back on some stupid decisions made in college. And by the time 3rd wave feminism "hit" she was approaching her 50's.

I honestly found myself wondering if Mrs. F-G's book would make more sense to my mother rather than me.

------------------------
Generation Info.
A Generation in the USA as of 2007 is typically around 25 years.
Generation Y - mid to late 1970's to late 90's early 00's
Generation X - about 1961- 1981
Baby Boomer Generartion - Post WWII to 1960
Silent Generation - 1925-1045

Feminist Movements
1st Wave 19th Century and Early 20th Century
2nd Wave - 1960 & 70's
3rd Wave - 1990 - ?
4th Wave - Happening Now?

Originally I assumed this book had been published no later than the turn of the new century, and because of that her original statments just seemed a little off from what I've experience but keeping in mind that she's not actually writing to me (as I was 13 when the book first came out), but rather to a group of women almost 15 years ago (with the stated opinions gathered closer to 20 years ago), I find myself able to step back from some of her definitions and assumptions as they were not made for my generation and I think I'll be able to approach this as more of a criticism of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism rather than what I believe the "4th wave" is shaping up to be.

With this information does Mrs. F-G's book make a little bit more sense to anyone else?
And what generation are you a part of?

Let's start talking!

Have you all read the preface yet? What really struck me was her mention of mothers, and how often women try to identify themselves are different from them (pgs 6-7). I was the opposite - I always wanted to be just like my mother, and had no problem saying that. I took it as a compliment when someone said I was like her, and still do! I think I almost worshiped my mom to an extent, and I know she worried that I didn't see her faults (though for the most part I think my mother was flattered). I guess it's because she just seemed to do everything right (a perfectionist tendency) and everyone loved her that I looked up to her so much. What about you? Did you idolize your mother, or "viscerally reject" her roles, or something else altogether?

And I'll throw out a few other questions that this brought up in my mind. What did you learn about femininity from your mother? What did you learn about feminism? What do you hope your own (future) daughters (and sons) will learn from you about this?

Hello! I'm finally getting around to introducing myself; sorry for the delay! I'm Lenae, married to my sweet husband for almost 5 years, and we have three sons (3 1/2, 21 months, and 4 months). We are an Air Force family, currently stationed in Georgia :)

I was not raised in a Christian home. In high school I began attending a youth group at a Pentecostal church and shortly after asked Christ to be the Lord of my life. (My husband and I now consider ourselves non-denominational Christians, and attend a n-d church.)

As for feminism, I've had an interesting time sorting my thoughts on it since I left the active duty Air Force to be at home with my first son. I was raised by two working parents who were horrified when I voluntarily decided to abandon the pursuit of my own career. They are still disappointed in me, and the ongoing conflict has forced me to examine modern feminism in contrast to biblical femininity. I look forward to reading this book and seeing what everyone has to say!

Another Maggie!

I'm Maggie P.; a blogless but nonetheless very excited new member of the club.

I am 24 years old, grew up in Idaho, and moved to Pennsylvania for college. After graduation I ended up in the Washington, DC metro area. I work in the city at a law firm, and dream of the day that I can be a homemaker, homeschooler, wife, and mother.

My mom is from a huge Catholic family (she is one of 15 kids!), and I grew up inspired by their love and sense of family. I personally am one of 7 kids, and was homeschooled together with them for much of my young life. While my family has always been the single most important factor in my life, the Church, although present, was always sort of tangential for me. I was given a choice to be confirmed or not, and opted out of it; even at 16, I knew it was a "big deal" and didn't want to make the commitment lightly.

It was in my last semester of college that I was encouraged by a dear (and very Catholic friend) to attend an NFP seminar. Having already determined that I wanted to be the mother of a large family, the practice inspired and fascinated me. It was my first introduction to the Church as a current, wise Mother. I thought "if they have such wonderful philosophys about this, what else can I find out?" Fast-forward 3 years, and I am finally in the process of being confirmed. I have a wonderful parish, a great RCIA class, and a supportive boyfriend from a great Catholic family by my side. All the beauty that I saw my whole life in my mother's Catholic family has been revealed to me even more. I love the Church like never before; yet I'm having a difficult time finding young adults who are as excited about it and engaged as I am. So imagine my excitement when I found this book club!

As for feminism, I grew up admiring Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and the original mothers who fought for the right to vote. It wasn't until college that I became aware of a different "sect" of more radical feminists. Before knowing much about it, I remember telling my college friends that "feminazis" weren't the only ones out there. My feminism was about choosing to be any kind of woman you wanted, which for me always equated to raising children and having a home. I love and celebrate being a woman and everything that comes with it--fertility; gentle grace; love. In my love for NFP, I discovered New Feminism and have truly embraced it.

I'm looking forward to the progression of our discussions, and reading this great book!

Details and timeline

Hey ladies! I couldn't remember if we'd actually sent out an email with more details about how this is going to work, so I thought I'd post the details on here.

Hopefully everyone will get the book in the next week or so.*  Our plan is to do a chapter a week (although if there's an overwhelming consensus we can go faster or slower). The idea is that you can write a post about anything you want to discuss in the chapter, and we'll have a conversation of sorts in the comments. (To ensure you keep up on the discussion, make sure to click "subscribe by email" under the comments.) If you want to look at a different detail from what someone else has posted on, just start another post!

Posting on the newest chapter will begin on Monday mornings. We'll start with the preface (feel free to post on it anytime after the 18th) and go from there! Here's how the timeline breaks down:

Jan 25 - Chapter 1
Feb 1 - Chapter 2
Feb 8 - Chapter 3
Feb 15 - Chapter 4
Feb 22 - Chapter 5
Mar 1 - Chapter 6
Mar 8 - Chapter 7
Mar 15 - Chapter 8
Mar 22 - Chapter 9
End of March - hopefully a phone date!

We're of course up for suggestions, if you have any. I can't wait to read this with you all!


*Please let me know if you have any issues getting a copy. We'll work it out so you get it!

And Me...

Hello! My name is Emily and you can find me at Me In Life.

Basic Info - I am 29 nearing that 30 mark. I have been married for almost ten years to my high school sweetheart. We have three boys 8, 5, and 20 months. I just recently became a stay at home mom. Uhmmm... it's been an adjustment. We live in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri and love the scenery.

I began my faith in a Southern Baptist Church as a young teen. After I met my husband I began to attend his church (Disciples of Christ) since his dad was a minister. I began to question the theology of the church just after we married and decided that we would attend a Methodist Church. I think the draw was more the programs offered and not so much the theology, which is not that far of a jump from what we were attending. We are now back to Disciples Of Christ, his mom is a minister here locally. We are feeling some very heavy pressure (or divine pressure you could say) to spend these years here serving our church. We have spent the past three having our church serve us. We have started a couple of things so far and are on "teams" to help make decisions. I seem to be a little different from the ladies that have already posted, in that I have very little catholism knowledge or training. I think maybe we all feel the same adoration, love, and devotion to Jesus, so maybe you can still let me be a part? Right? Right?!

As far as feminism goes, I have truthfully feared it for most of my life. My mother was a silent pusher of the you-don't-need-a-man-to-take-care-of-you theory but at the same time wanting to make sure I married some one that could "take care" of me. I agree with the basic principle of having choices and the freedom the original women fought for, but turned off by "feminazies". I just think God created man and women to fit together like two pieces of a puzzle that includes friends, family, and children for some. I am excited to enlighten myself with more knowledge on the subject and definitely looking forward to the knowledge of all you ladies already experienced in the topic. Thank you so much for putting this together!

About me, and a little about the author

Hi ladies! I'm Elizabeth at That Married Couple. I am soo excited about this book club and am loving the introductions! Just think, we haven't even gotten to the book yet!

For my stats: 27 year old married to a wonderful husband. No kids yet, but hopefully that will change this year! I'm originally from Missouri and crave moving back to the Midwest. I went to Texas for grad school, where I met my husband, and we moved back to Pennsylvania, where he's from. Actually, we now live in the same house he grew up in, as my MIL passed away this past Easter and we moved in with his father in August.

I grew up Protestant (Disciples of Christ denomination), was always certain that my future husband would be changing denominations to join me (a non-Protestant was unthinkable), and was horrified that the man who would become my husband was Catholic and didn't want to change (even though he wasn't practicing when we started dating! the nerve!). It took a lot of prayer, tears, study, and temper-tantrums before finally the Holy Spirit opened me up to the fullness of the faith. I fell in love with it and entered the Church this past Easter.

I have been in school my entire life. It's getting a little old, so I can't wait to finish grad school this spring. I'm keeping my eyes open for jobs, but after I graduate I'm really hoping to become a stay-at-home mom. This is a complete 180 from where I was a few years ago, when my then-boyfriend informed me that he thinks it's good for the mother to stay at home when the children were young - I was appalled! Since then I've come to see what a great opportunity it is, so I'm praying we will be able to conceive and have a child in the not too distant future!

Have you noticed yet that I tend to ramble?

Okay, and about feminism. I always kind of wanted to be a feminist, in the yay-girl-power, I'm-just-as-tough-as-a-boy way, but was simultaneously terrified of the "feminazis." Since learning about New Feminism and the writings of John Paul II, I have become infatuated with the concept, and truly believe it's the right way to go. I'm certainly not an anti-feminist, since I believe especially the first feminists procured a lot of important rights we were being denied (hello suffrage), but I think the movement has been commandeered by a few radicals who are taking things too far. I think some keys to improving it is to (a) truly love other women and (b) actually love men, too. But I'll stop before this tangent gets too long, as we have plenty of time to discuss this kind of stuff!


I'm really excited about this book, because I read another of this author's works: Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die. I was very impressed with Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. (Do you mind if I shorten it to EFG on here?) I also learned a lot about her history in the introduction and afterward, and thought you might be interested.

EFG started out as "a leading Marxist-feminist intellectual who identified herself as a nonbeliever" and was a founder of one of the first women's studies departments. Nonetheless, she was extremely honest and objective in her pursuit of truth. Her compatriots were furious when she abandoned secular liberalism to become pro-life and eventually Catholic. "If her pro-life advocacy angered many liberal intellectuals, her outspoken defense of marriage and traditional norms of sexual morality made them apoplectic."

The intro was written by one of her students, who on the surface was completely the opposite of EFG at the time, and she raved about the openness of EFG to opinions and theories different from her own. EFG was a woman who was willing to follow wherever the data took her, even when it departed dramatically from what she had originally adhered to. I'm really looking forward to reading more of her work!

And then there's me...

Hello to you all, ladies!

My name is Katie. You can find my blog at songofasunflower.blogspot.com

(The link on the side of this blog connects you to my teaching blog, so use this one above!)

I am 25, a schoolteacher, and a practicing Catholic. My faith became important to me at 15, when friends invited me to attend a Non-Denominational youth group. There, I became motivated to learn more about a Savior -- who loved me with a zealous love. The youth group was my launching pad, but shortly after beginning to attend regularly, I often received comments from both the youth group leaders and members that Catholics weren't Christians, and although I didn't know my Catholic upbringing well enough to refute that, it challenged me to find out more about the Catholic Church. Miraculously, later that year, the Catholic parish my family attended FINALLY got a youth minister and started a youth group when I was 16. I never really attended the Catholic youth group because I started working at 16, but I did have an incredible Confirmation experience -- a testament to the wonderful youth minister who led Confirmation, and I really became passionate about my faith at that point.

I'm excited about this book club, because, I find myself alone in my Catholic faith. I have many friends who are Protestant, and love that we share the same values, but really don't seem to meet many Catholics my age who are practicing their faith...and I think that's a shame!

Feminism is something, that, in my life, was felt but not heard. My mom exemplified old-fashioned, ladylike behavior and served her family as a stay-at-home wife and mother. But, there have always been expectations that were encouraged from the outside: mostly, that women should be self-sufficient financially and emotionally, and that all men suck. (Okay, maybe that last one is a stretch!) I've always blindly followed the directive that feminism was a valiant movement for the equal rights of women, but it has to be said that feminism has similarly corrupted the values of chivalry, respect, and honor towards women. I recently finished the book, Captivating, by John and Staci Eldredge, a book that suggested that the feminine soul has been neglected by the push for modern feminism. I think that Feminism is Not the Story of My Life will most likely compliment Captivating, and reveal new ways to grow toward the life God has called me to lead.

Hi, I'm Michelle...

I'm Michelle.  YOu can find my ramblings at http://musingsofacatholiclady.blogspot.com

I have been married to my husband, Craig, for 10.5 years.  We have four children:  three daughters, ages 8, 6, almost-4 and my son will be 1 on the 16th of January.

I am a cradle Catholic, although my parents divorced when I was 8 and my mother wasn't well-versed in the faith and didn't really work that hard to make sure we learned it.  My oldest daughter's baptism was a turning point for my husband and me and we decided to really learn the faith we vowed to raise our children in. 

I am a serious soul.  I like to laugh and all that, but I usually see to the heart of the matter.

As for feminism...I often have a knee-jerk reaction to it.  I have often viewed it as a negative that sprang forth seemingly necessary double-income families, explosive use of contraception and abortion.  However, I acknowledge that without the advancements in things like meaningful work for women and striving to provide opportunities, I wouldn't be able to support my family as I do.  HOwever, my mind always plays the circle-game that if they hadn't pushed for those opportunities, perhaps I would not live in a time where it was necessary for me to work to help sustain our family's socio-economic status.  Does that make sense? 

With that said, I am all for recognizing the dignity of women.  I believe women should be allowed to own property and also vote...so I hope my last paragraph didn't completely disparage me to some of you.  I just often see a lot of the negative that seems to have come from the "feminist movement".

I am looking forward to reading this book to help me sort my feelings on the topic and understand other women's attitudes and reactions to feminism.

I am very excited to participate in this book club.  Thank you so much to Sarah and Elizabeth for organizing!

Me Next!

Hi ladies,

I'm Rebecca and you can find me at Feel My Love.

I'm 30 years old and have been married to my best friend and soul-mate, Cliff, for 5 1/2 years.  We live in West Virginia with Max and Kali - our cat and dog babies.  We do not have human children yet.

I am a cradle Catholic, but in the last year have truly crossed the bridge from admiring Jesus to following Jesus. Crossing this bridge has challenged me to think about how I view women's roles and really forced me to consider what my values are.  I didn't go to catholic school ever and my CCD experience was somewhat fragmented.  Cliff went through the RCIA 6 years ago, and his faith challenges me every day.  The way he describes his moment of baptism gives me chills.

I'm blessed to be a part of this amazing group of women and I look forward to learning from you all!

Hey Everybody!

I'm Monica (aka CM) and I blog at catholicmutt.blogspot.com. I turn the big 3-0 later this year, and I am a physical therapist. I live in the Midwest, and I'm tired of snow and below zero temperatures and bad roads and salt on the car.

I am a cradle Catholic, and am in love with the faith of my birth. I am also beyond grateful to all of the non-Catholic family and friend influences in my life. It has made my faith so much richer than it ever could have been otherwise. I had a Catholic education in middle and high school, but went to very liberal schools for college and grad school.

Hmm, what else?

I guess in regards to the book, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my copy gets here before too late. I did some thinking about how excited I was to read the book, but neglected to think about how I needed to order it so I would be able to read it. Did I mention that I'm a blonde? It's on the way now (I hope!)

I grew up kind of against the hard core feminism that I associate with the word "feminism". I have always hated how "equal" had to mean "the same as men". Then again, I think there were some very positive things brought about by feminism, and I'm very grateful for all the educational and job opportunities that were available to me as I went through school. I think those things were very good things to come out of the feminist movement. I also think there is something very beautiful about motherhood, and I want to see a feminism that doesn't lose sight of that. I don't think that women should be judged as second-rate mothers if they work, nor do I want to see stay-at-home moms be judged as "wasting" their lives. And those are some of my thoughts with no particular organization or thought behind it, so I should probably stop before it gets out of hand.

I'm really looking forward to getting to read this book with everyone. Thanks to Sarah and Elizabeth for all their work getting things organized!

And me

I am Rae & my blog is nowealthbutlife.com.

I am 24, married, childless, Catholic, & unemployed in Greenland Mississippi. At this point the only thing that I really do is job-hunt, but my hope is to eventually get back to school for a BSN & then become a midwife. I would love to study theology on a graduate level, but have no interest in teaching.

I was raised in a hyper-conservative family. Whenever I hear "normal" women talk about embracing things like submission, head coverings, or homeschooling, I freak out a little internally. Even though I know that they do not usually mean the extremes to which I have been exposed, I still have a hard time accepting that whatever it is they do mean could be good & healthy for them. I hope that you can forgive me for sounding unnecessarily emphatic.

In college I was almost always the conservative one in the classroom, and I often got through discussions by being confident that I was at least as much of a feminist as anyone else. These days I don't find the term as useful, but I am not ready to abandon it. After all, it is no more confused and problematic than "conservative" or "liberal." I do not know how I should be classified as a feminist, but I suspect that is because the "fourth wave" will not be recognized until it is over. I think that I would really like to be a womanist, if only I weren't so white.

I am most looking forward to reading this book in particular because of a review by Mary Ann Glendon, and I am really excited about reading it with all of you!