Letters to the Editor
-
Roiphe rattles harpies
"Roiphe's version of feminism thus individualizes the way in which global capitalism uses women's invisible labor in the home."
Invisible to whom? And surely not unpaid. Maids don't get half the house, have the bank accounts, and all the kids when fired. Wives do. Plus who pays the man for the plumbing, carpentry, car repair, security guard, landscaping, etc. "chores" guys traditionally do in the home? And how many hours does each person work in and out of the house? Most studies show that man actually log more hours in total per families than women. Of course, feminists-- concerned only with women-- never admit that.
"a feminist...thinks there is something unequal between men and women."
Too true. Feminists is BASED on that illusion. It's why feminism never gives fair hearing/airing to men's lives. Wimmin complain about picking up Legos, not having to work 10 extra hours operating a construction crane. The latter is something men are expected to do stoically and often. Women complained about getting the vote later than men, not that they STILL don't have to protect the country equally.
Again, feminism is not now --nor was it ever--, about equality. It's about making things easier and easier for women, harder and harder for men (without, of course, ever accurately assessing the prices men pay for perceived perks). Kudos to Katie for showing true clit and speaking truth to powerful feminists!
-
Surving Feminism 101
I was at a very liberal college when Roiphe's first book came out. I worked at the college's Women's Center. and I came to see, along with a few other women there, that Feminism seemed to have very little to do with my day to day life. There was a specific was to think, read, act, even dress. Not to mention the soundtrack! The worst part was the factions fighting each other at the center. The "women of color" fought with the lesbians over who was more insensitive, or, conversely, who as more of a victim. It was terrible. It seemed the movement was more important than the individual. One had to subsume one's individual pint of view to the ideology.
I've matured enough since then to recognize a lot of this was the folly of youth. I've separated the wheat from the chaffe, realizing that some aspects of Feminist thinking still rises above the moment to offer insights into our society. However, like most ideologies, a lot of it offers a barren, polarized version of reality.
I don't agree with some of what Roiphe says. But I can't help feeling that I should be strong enough to tolerate, or even benefit from, exposure to someone who thinking challenges my perspective. That I could be this sort of person is now my personal definition of Feminism.
-
In my humble opinion...
I have never read any of Katie Roiphe's work, so I can only judge it by the (admittedly biased) opinion of Rebecca Traister. The reason I would probably tend to dislike her work is, well... The example taken from her first book, that she states that date rape is not a big deal because she didn't have any friends who had claimed they were raped. I can believe that she had no friends that claimed that. But to say that just because that was her personal experience, therefore it applies to the world at large is just irresponsible.
Every one of us forms our beliefs through our personal experiences. If you can't bring yourself to realize that someone else's opinions are valid to them, that their personal experiences have brought them to that conclusion, why should you expect someone that disagrees with you to consider your opinion? The reason I have absolutely no respect for Ann Coulter isn't because she has the absolute opposite beliefs from me, but that she won't even consider the possibility that her experience of the world isn't the definitive one. If you can't keep your mind open to opinions different from your own, don't expect me to be open to your opinions.
All of us can be, and are, wrong from time to time. (Some more often than others.) I would never make a very good polemicist because I'm too certain that what I think next week may well be different than what I think today. I don't want to paint myself into a corner. And this is probably also why the Republican message was so effective for so long and why they are starting to look more and more ridiculous; because they're much more likely to see things black and white and take an unwavering stand, and if all the evidence is against them, all they can do is either ignore the evidence and soldier on, or do a 180 and claim that's what they've been saying all along. Nuance and open-mindedness don't naturally lend themselves to strong, unassailable stands on issues.
And all that leads to lots of other ideas, but I've probably digressed enough, if I was ever on-topic to begin with.
-
Everywoman Fembotulism?
How does figuring out how to "afford gas for our crappy cars and put money away so we don't starve when we're old" a form of feminism any more than sewing is tennis? The term "feminism" has been used so often, in so many contradictory ways, it's useless as a definition (save to, at some point, blame men). If "women [are] all remarkably different from each other" why not call the movement "humanism" and work with men to solve problems?
Of course that would entail recognizing the burdens men bear...and doing something to ease them, too.
Sure, men get raised by smart, independent women. But women also get raised by sensitive, protective men. So if men now do housework, cook, and support women...what are women doing for men in return? Do they tweak sparkplugs in the family car, repair leaks in roofs, mow lawns, investigate strange noises at night? Why cheer men for doing things to help women without demanding that women also do things for men?
When will women become half of those doing long-haul trucking, coal mining, high-steel construction, frontline combat? When will divorced mothers be court-ordered to work overtime to pay child support to custodial fathers?
Where, in short, is the talk about women's new responsibilities?
Katie?