Want some straw, man?

[vovat]

bethje and I were talking the other day about how Pat Robertson has pledged his support for Giuliani, and his infamous comment that feminism is "a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" came up. It's hard to believe that there are still people who take him seriously after that, and that was fifteen years ago. But he's not the only one I've heard talk about how feminism "encourages" women to do this or that. But the dictionary definition simply says it's "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." So how does that encourage anything? It's simply saying that, as far as the law is concerned, women have the right to raise children, have careers, sit around and do nothing, have sex with members of the same gender and worship the horned god Cernunnos, or do all or none of those things, just as men do. It reminds me of how Creationists (including everyone's favorite tax evader, low-budget theme park operator, and jailbird Kent Hovind) insist that the theory of evolution tells people what to do. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it just baffles me how people can swallow these ideas, regardless of what they think of women's rights and the origins of life. But I guess it's much easier to make straw man arguments than to argue against what things actually are.

Comments

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

Pat Robertson is a twit -- a well-connected one, but still a git.

I've been thinking a lot lately about gender- vs. equity-feminism. I think that it's easier for most people to equate all feminism with gender-feminism because it's more polarizing. All equity-feminism is about is giving men and women the same rights; that's not very exciting and it's certainly nothing you can get people whipped into a frenzy about.

Gender-feminism, however, posits than women should be given preferential treatment over men (as part of reparations, blah blah blah) and most of the supporters of this way of thinking are militant about their views. (And, yes, many of them are lesbians.) That makes for a much better rally-round-the-pulpit sermon for small-minded individuals who like to use scare tactics as a means to warp the minds and control the actions of others.

Realistically, I see the need for both types of feminists -- it's all about the bell curve and normal distribution crap. Too few people on either end of the curve (one gender is better than the other) means that the midpoint moves and a position nearer the middle (equity) becomes radical. So, we have to keep the radical wackos on both ends of the spectrum if we want to maintain a good middle ground for the majority. :)

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Gender-feminism, however, posits than women should be given preferential treatment over men (as part of reparations, blah blah blah) and most of the supporters of this way of thinking are militant about their views.

I guess that's sort of an affirmative action kind of thing, which I can see both ways. Obviously the end goal should be equality for everyone, but it's hard to change people's minds overnight, so some sort of leg-up program is often necessary.

It's interesting that, while the dictionaries pretty much always define "feminism" simply as a movement for equal rights, a lot of people's minds seem to immediately think of the more militant kind. I'm sure that's partially because of some self-styled feminists giving the entire movement a bad name (just like bigoted fundamentalists do for Christianity, Al Qaeda for Islam, distributors of "people who eat meat are worse than Hitler" propaganda pamphlets for the animal rights movement, readers of High Times for those who want to legalize marijuana, and so on ad infinitem). But I have to wonder if part of the problem is simply the use of the word "feminism" itself.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is pretty much the comment I was going to make to the main post. It's just that it seems the most vocal, visible factions of any particular movement/ideology/etc are the extremists, so anyone who doesn't know much about a particular concept is going to assume the whole thing is like what the nutsos say. I know personally I get frustrated the most by the bigoted fundamentalists, eco-terrorists, and people who bomb abortion clinics because I particularly CARE about Christianity, environmentalism, and the rights of the unborn, and it's so frustrating talking to people who think they disagree with me when they really disagree with the extremists!

[dragonxbait.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to add that I know some people who fall into the extreme ends of the evangelical spectrum and they generally do not think that men and woman *are* equal. They think that a man is the head of his home like god is the head of the church and a woman's role is to support him. So to them, gender equity is radical and dangerous.

man is the head of his home like god is the head of the church and a woman's role is to support him

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

HAHAHHHHAHAHAAAAAAA!

*wipes away tears of laughter*


Screw them.

Re: man is the head of his home like god is the head of the church and a woman's role is to support

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I understand that such people exist, but to take their opinions into account in making American public policy strikes me as a major violation of both the spirit and letter of established Constitutional law. But then, the extent to which the government actually pays attention to the radical evangelists is a matter of debate. Some people have indicated that they're basically just given lip service. But when there's serious discussion of teaching Creationism in public school science classes and passing a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, I'm not so sure.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

They think that a man is the head of his home like god is the head of the church and a woman's role is to support him

You know, my entire life, long before I was old enough to know much about feminism, I have never been able to figure out that sentiment. In WHOSE household, honestly, is the man really the head? ESPECIALLY in households with a stay-at-home-mom, because seriously, with the man off earning a living all the time, the person who really lays down the law (and enforces it) is MOM because she's the one who's THERE TO DO IT. I knew at a very early age that if I wanted something and didn't think mom would let me I could ask dad and I just better hope I get away with it before mom finds out and vetoes it. How is the person with the LEAST amount of day-to-day interaction with the children REALLY supposed to expect to be considered head of the household? Anyway.

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

his infamous comment that feminism is "a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"

No, that is what these people are afraid of.

They attribute these behaviors to feminism because it kills three birds with one stone - it demonizes feminism, not-so-subtly suggests that in order to be an average responsible woman, you can't be a feminist, and bundles a bunch of scary things neatly together so make them smaller and less scary. You can't get more reductionist than to blame it on feminism.

I feel sorry for them. Women are clearly equal to men, but the robertsons of the world are too afraid to avail themselves of the skills and plain old usefulness of having every member of your group do what they are good at. It amuses me whenever women, for instance, move into tasks "they aren't naturally good at," according to traditional commonsense, do a great job, and doubters suddenly see the light - yeah, women can do that, why didn't we have women doing that before? But until they see it, they can't imagine it.