Lame
phoenixfire75

Share this Broadcast

share

Subscribe to this author

subscribe

Message This Author

contact

Star this author

stars

Subscribe

subscribe

Home

go to your pnn homepage

Start_blogging

start blogging

HelpFlag this Broadcast
LOGIN LOGOUT Home
Politics
change, news, views
Green
Living an eco-friendly life
Money & Careers
Building your financial fitness
Family
Moms, dads, kids
Diversions
Kick back, relax
Style
chic and cheap
DIY
handmade, homemade, more
World
Going global
Well-Being
Everything for body and soul
A&E
a dose of 'cultcha'
Living
the good, the bad, the messy
Gossip
Pssst: The scoop on celebs
Contests

Image

Welcome to Crone's World - A Feminist View from the Front

Posted by phoenixfire75 Posted on: 07/28/08

Welcome to Crone's World - A Feminist View from the Front

My generation is from the 70's where women were still discovering how to be women and feminists were proud of that title. We marched and Took Back the Night, Our Bodies, Our Selves, and promoted Self Love over Free Love.  Those were heady days, days when one felt one could do anything - achieve our dream as women in our own right.

What the hell happened?

Somehow our generation ran smack into bringing up the 80's women who seemed content to ride our coat tails, and shuddered at the image of a feminist equating it with 'man-eater', dressed themselves in bows and lace, and then produced the 90's generation of women, who seem to take hard fought for rights for granted - blissfully unaware that these rights are being eroded even as I write this.

Say it ain't so!

It ain't.  There are still plenty of women working together for women's rights - not only here - but around the world. More women have achieved leadership positions in the US in business, finance, economics, and politics, education, the sciences and the arts. The children of our children's loins have had their balloon deflated and are beginning to see that, in the case of women's rights, the fight has to move forward. Unequality and our rights is still our - A WOMAN'S - fight.

Still I am being niggled at inside by annoyance as I see a general passive attitude still permeate like an annoying hot, wool shawl over us - from my generation to today's. The attitude that allows us look at today's political campaign and realize that, despite a woman having the popular vote, an unqualified man was chosen. Instead of being up in arms over this, women of all ages, genders, and enthnicities have caved in and are saying, "Well - at least he's a Democrat; we'd better fall in line and back him because he's better than a Republican."

I'm a life-long Democrat and I'm thinking - THIS is a reason???

Barack Obama has made no promises to our sex- our gender. The fact that he has been making nice with the Conservative Right lately beeps a big RED ALERT to me and to other women. He is NOT even considering a woman, any woman, seriously as a Vice-Presidential candidate! Look who he is hanging out on platforms with! Sorry, ladies, nary a woman in sight!

I say it is time to rally, girls, women, teens and crones. I think we should be promoting a Women's Party candidate. I think the time has come.


0Vote!
Links
  • The term feminist has been somewhat redefined since the 70's. The era of bra burning is now so much smoke. Being a photojournalist at heart, I tend to get impressions of the movement or organization by the images which I see from their rallies. And many of those feminists which I have seen would appear as really hateful people charged not on intellect but by pure emotion. I knew women in the early eighties who would be mad at men just because they were men. A woman in Fort Wayne, Indiana threw a brick through a retailers' window because he would not hire her-- presumably because she could only get daycare four days a week for the hours she would have worked. Later that year, I met what I term is a modern feminist--and I am sure many of those bra burning woman would spit on her too--her beliefs were too similar to mine. She wanted an equal chance, no handouts, no playing of the gender card, no affirmative action based on her gender. (continued next msg)
    By PhotoRanger on July 28, 2008 18:27

  • We had long conversations about the supposed glass ceiling - and I used the word 'supposed' because it did not exist everywhere - like so many woman shouted in rallies. If she believed something was unfair in the workplace, she did not run to the media, but she spoke up to gain a proper understanding. I am sure that she shared many of her 'bad' experiences with those around her. But, what I liked about her the most, she did not make it about them--those misguided, misinformed, biased people--her intentions (from a feminist viewpoint) were to show the terrible mistakes some of these men were making by not utilizing the resources they had in their midst to their fullest extent. She went off and created her own company and sadly we have not contacted each other in years. (continued next msg)
    By PhotoRanger on July 28, 2008 18:28

  • As for the momentum failing, I think all causes which are fueled primarily on emotion fade away or morph into a more sustainable form--perhaps a kinder and gentler modern kind. That is not to say I believe that woman's rights are not substantively based on the presumption of equality, they are well founded in logic. But it is solely the construction of additional female gender rights as a means to offset, which has been a thorn in many a person's side. Best regards -Ed
    By PhotoRanger on July 28, 2008 18:29

  • Hi Ed! Welcome! I enjoy the intelligent commentary and appreciate your point of view. Coming from the bra-burning era, I honestly feel that every movement probably starts or rapidly gets to the point, where extremist, attention-getting action is necessary to underline the 'point'. As for being 'so much smoke' - we started that fire and hoped that the 'starting fluid' would morph into something else deeper to keep the embers lit. Sometimes I see it - sometimes I don't. I'm not sure what you mean by 'additional female gender rights'; are you saying we ask for more then men without putting forth additional effort? Seriously, I don't think you can look at women as a group and note our strength, our steadfastness, and our intelligence to say that we are asking more. With women still earning 77 cents to every dollar a man makes, we are still asking for 'just even'. I am proud of the bra burners and the action takers just as I would be of the Founding Fathers for their choice to act
    By phoenixfire75 on July 28, 2008 21:43

  • instead of just talking about it. As for being kinder and gentler, H. Clinton ran her race overall with dignity and a toughness that showed she could play as well as the men. Yet she underwent more media attention - male media attention - and was subject to remarks that were uncalled for by men of today. I remind you of the FOX TV commentator (male) who said that she was a castrating so and so. I suspect that a lot of men still think that under a very thin veneer of political correctness - in other words, I feel that your gender may have been led to the waters of gender rights and equality, but a lot of you are not drinking in very deep gulps. It's the same reason racism exists...but I digress. I don't feel that we as a collective group need to be kinder and gentler with such prejudice still existing. I for one would dearly love to see the bra burners back...oh, wait - mine is beginning to smoke. Look out :)!
    By phoenixfire75 on July 28, 2008 21:57

  • You are an interesting read Phoenix, I am looking forward to your next article. FYI: Even as I listen to FOX, I pretty much thought that even they thought H. Clinton was more experienced(more worthy) than B.O. But I doubt that gender had the impact on his election -- likely some back door deals which will never make the light of day.
    By PhotoRanger on July 29, 2008 00:13

  • Ed - I agree with you on that. The man keeps talking about change - but never says how and what exactly he is going to change. He may be a good person, BUT I am very uneasy over his language and lack of substance of message...which means his advisors will be pulling the strings! Perhaps H. wasn't the woman for the moment...but who would be? Other countries have had women leaders and seem to have rocked along just fine. Ours seems to have a deep seated primal fear of women in power. Would enjoy seeing some of your work, by the way - send a link :)
    By phoenixfire75 on July 29, 2008 12:17

  • I hate to break this to you, because I think you mean well, but one of the main reasons the feminist movement ever got off the ground was because it served the ends of the establishment (government). That is, to destroy the family unit. Don't get me wrong, I think women deserve equal treatment in the job market, etc., but without feminism it would have been very difficult for people to accept the notion that two incomes (or more) are generally required to raise a family in this country. Whether it's a majority of women or men staying at home to raise their children, I think we'd be a heck of a lot better off.
    By Steve Dupont on July 29, 2008 19:59

  • Hi Steve: It's your opinion and I'll defend to the death your right to it. Me - I personally think that while the government is incredibly two-faced, it does not have the necessary slyness for anything that tricky. Haven't you noticed that our democracy is still brand new compared to European governments; its usual tack to rush right in brandishing weapons and wearing boots. It really knows next to nothing about intrigue; even the FBI and CIA have been caught as run by and for bumbling, territorial idiots. Overall, I think the bungling of our economy and the selling away of our country to foreign interests or the highest bidder came first followed by the necessity for a two people income to make ends meet. I do agree with you that children need to be raised with more attention, and the women's movement has paved the way for men who really want to to be the stay-at-home parent. And for women, too. The pendulum swings and trys to come back to center...Nice hat :)
    By phoenixfire75 on July 29, 2008 21:52

  • You make some good points, however, I think you underestimate the slyness and trickiness at work on the part of government. Although in retrospect it would have been more accurate to categorize the "establishment" as a combination of government and corporate interests. The two are becoming one in the same, and they certainly both benefit from the destruction of the family unit. Look forward to reading more of your stuff ...
    By Steve Dupont on July 30, 2008 15:31

Leave a Comment


about us | contact | terms | privacy | advertise | help | press | feedback