How do you reconcile neoliberalism and feminism?

[sweetheart]

Many people on DU are against imperialism and the manifest destiny
intent that lurk inside the neoliberal view that we should set the
rest of the world right 'cuz we know better.

Womens rights are very weak in many nations in this world, and if
we do not go about "setting them right", then they will stay abysmal.
Feminism, however, is by its very nature not a hard-force kind of
approach, and is not delivered through the bomb bay doors of a B-52.
That is speaking regarding "macro" feminism, inter-cultural womens
rights.

In micro-feminism, surviving as a woman in a patriarchal culture that
systematically represses women, can involve being ruthless, and
being a "bitch", to demand equal treatment. Presuming that this
technique works on a macro-scale, i call "B-52 feminism", and,
as has been proven in afganistan, despite the rhetoric, womens rights
are not improved.

So how do we achieve a world of real womens equality for all
3+ billion women on this earth? What do you think?

[Branjor]

1. Women's rights...

have never been advanced by male bombs. In Iraq, women had been enjoying a high degree of freedom under Saddam, in universities, in professions and did not have to veil themselves. Now, thanks to *Co, Iraq is in disarrray and will probably end up with a woman hating theocracy such as in Iran.

As to Afghanistan, feminsts here in the USA had been pushing for years for the Taliban to be sanctioned for their treatment of women, but no, the Taliban were our "friends"...until 9/11.

[mzmolly]

2. Kill all the men?!

:P KIDDING !

I hear you! I just watched a movie about a young Afghan girl called "Osama" ... it was heartbreaking, and powerful. I highly recommend it.

Peek around here, the movie was actually filmed in Afghanistan. It's an amazing story in more ways then one, because it was very low budget and the actors are amatures. You won't believe the performances in spite of the fact that MOST in the film had NO acting experience.

http://www.osamamovie.com/

I feel oppressed in this society, let alone under the Taliban.

I think we need to arrange for a day of world protest, where women around the globe could take part in peaceful demonstrations. (I realize for some women this is "dangerous") but we should dedicate a DAY to womens rights and have a "million man" er uhm, "million women" march every year?

*I would wear a burka to demonstrate for women who can't because they may be risking their lives.

I tend to think that "inspiring" nations is the best way to go about change. Another thing to note is that "religion" and the perversion of it are excuses to oppress women and children in many nations, including our own.

It's a huge issue to tackle.

[Cats Against Frist]

4. That's what I was going to say. But I was serious.

Kidding!!! :)

It's getting women to recognize their own rights that is the problem, IMHO. In other countries, it may be harder -- and in Islamic fundamentalist countries -- really, really hard. In America, third-wave feminism has made it worse -- turned feminism into a joke, in my opinion.

I, myself, do not believe in imperialism, and I don't believe in hierarchy. The west has thought it was helping "the savages," for a real long time, and it hasn't resulted in much more than the bloodiest century of human history, the decimation of the Americas -- and the new age of global terrorism.

You could say that many of the problems that the west "helps" the "savages" with are either 1. Only problems in the sense of western logic and psychology or 2. Were actually created by the West, ourselves.

I'm sorry. I truly believe in womens' rights, but I also do not take an ethnocentric view and assume that all western constructs -- even those of the Enlightement, Workers rights movement, Civil Rights Movement, Womens' suffrage and rights movement -- which I consider to be some of the pinnacles of human history, can or should be applied to all cultures. Sure, there are bright spots in the mingling of cultures, and no one can say, for certain, that had the west not imperialized the globe, that things would be any better than they are now, however, since I don't believe in very many absolutes, and I believe very much in subjectivity, to manipulate people's lives, judge them by your own yardstick, and then continue to try to tinker and bail them out, when it's clear your border cutting, coup making, technology and money worshiping, capitalist, Christian missionary position logic system helped fuck everything up in the first place -- that really really sucks. The problem is, particularly in Africa -- that things just go to shit and unimaginable atrocity, REAL FAST.

And speaking of women who don't realize the possibility of equality -- the west has long ignored/rationalized that they helped fuck up the world, outside of Europe.

And lest you still cling to the idea of western "Enlightenment," or worse -- Christianity -- being the bright spot in a world of darkness -- think about this, for a second? How "Enlightened" are we, exactly?? There are a few things you can say about the United States, undeniably -- we largely have a "leisure" culture, we have great technology, and a fairly decent infrastructure -- but that's a LOOONNNG way from the idea of the enlightened utopian, gentle, egalitarian culture that WE (well, some of us, like me) imagine for ourselves.

We have one in five nine-year-old girls puking her guts out, or starving herself to look like "Britney," meanwhile, half the population is dying of obesity -- the disease of excess -- they're using this "technology" to cure the disease they sold to you, in the first place, everyone's pill popping anti-depressants, wealth is concentrated to such a phenomenal extreme that I really think even the most "guilty liberal" mind can't fully grasp it, Social Darwinism runs rampant, our culture is divided by race, religion -- for fuck's sake even if you "eat meat" or "don't eat meat," there's a goddamn rift in the culture -- people are collateral damage -- and not just Iraqis, but ALL of us. And then there's the flip side -- we can't even take care of ourselves, we frame ourselves, on the left, as rescuing some poor, defensless underclass, but what we're really doing is trying to save 200 million middle class individuals -- including ourselves -- FROM OURSELVES. People are engaged in the soulless pursuit of material wealth -- love has been reduced to sex, sex has been reduced to porn, and porn is one of the most misogynist things around. And we all live in these little vinyl-sided houses in treeless cul-de-sacs, thinking we're so "individual" and "free," when PEOPLE ARE BUYING BRAND-NAME jeans FOR $60, which are made by a 9-year-old girl in Bangladesh making $.25 US a day -- not to mention that the jeans cost less than a dollar in materials.

And Europe, being western also, isn't going to escape. Rampant capitalism is cracking the social democratic parties in many countries -- the old ways, even Swedish "Lagom," will be bred out of the kids in the next 50 years, the Italians are getting fat off of McDonald's.

And we have some 20 percent of our population that THINKS THE LITERAL EVENTS IN REVELATION ARE GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THEIR LIFETIME, and these people are the base of the dumbest idiot madman to ever run this country.

And this is the West. The west that knows everything. A system of psyches so chained and constructed and puritainical and rigid.

What else is there to say? I guess, who are we to judge other cultures? To continually and historically impress our own views on others -- even those that seem really good to us.

So I don't reconcile neoliberalism. I don't always even reconcile "humanitarianism."

My opinion.

In other words, thinking you can bring "equal rights" to 3 billion women, is -- well, imperialist.

EDIT: MZMOLLY, this rant was not a reply to you -- only the "kill men" part. The rest was stating my opinion on the overall thread question. :)

[gpandas]

7. great post!

but few americans see themselves as you correctly portray them. the pursuit of ignorance, the sad attempts to buy happiness, and the ugliness of greed are the true hallmarks of today's america. NIMBY is the battle cry, tax cuts the salvation. as a society, we have perfected the art of blaming others for our own failings. i'm going to stop the rant, but your post stoked a fire in me that has been burning as long as i can remember.

[mzmolly]

12. Great post indeed!

:hi:

[sweetheart]

13. lucid post, thank you.

What do you think of AP's and LydiaLeftcoast's solution mindset?

I think that giving up on the "western constucts of the enlightenment" defeats us, as then we accept as a global community
that some women simply are not worth fighting for... even if
"fighting" means in this context, sticking up for labour unions,
or calling it racism and applying the screws once applied to
apartheid south africa.

[noiretextatique]

16. i can't accept a practice like female genital mutiliation

as just a different cultural practice. the women who have endured such practices who are now speaking out against them have my support.
just as the women of afghanistan have my support...not as a cultural imperialist, but as a human being, and as a woman.

i do think the early american feminist movement was guilty of a kind of cultural imperialism, but i also know that women in afghanistan aren't simply waiting around for american feminists to tell them what to do.

being in solidarity with women fighting their own battles around the world is absolutely the opposite of cultural supremacy. int he meantime: we have much work to do to get out own house in order...i agree with you about that.

[H2O Man]

3. I'm not sure that

people feel we should become involved in other nation's problems because "we know better." Certainly that has come in to play far too often, but there is far more to the true American spirit than the negative aspects.

If, for example, there is famine in another country, America should intervene not because we "know better," but because we are blessed with more. This is a basic rule that was given to human-kind in the Original Instructions. If my garden matures faster than my neighbors, I should share my bounty with their families; when their garden is harvested, they will share with me. That's not neoliberal or any other lable. It's the highest potential of human society.

We then go from that easy to grasp example to another: if in my neighborhood, there is aviolent thug, who poses a serious threat to men, women, and children, would it imply that I think I "know better" if I become involved in keeping that thug from harming my most vulnerable neighbors? I think that this again is what the Masters from all cultures have recognized as being part of the higher potential.

What has gotten in our way, as a nation, is the greed factor. We want to hoard material wealth, and that includes trying to capitalize off the bounty of the earth, or from being the world neighbor's "cop."

America, with all of it's problems (which are symbolized and actualized by the Bush administration), still offers the world its best hope. We just need to concentrate on reaching a higher ground here first, and then use that status in a positive way.

[sweetheart]

5. positive and negative poles of neoliberalism

America is one of, a clutch of nations that have reasonable womens
equality, and i'm at a loss for a word for "them", as calling them
the "west" is not quite right... but perhaps "Most Developed
Feminist States" MDFS. These nations, as a unity, can have
tremendous power by example, in encouraging womens rights the world
over. I guess it still leaves 2 questions:

1. What form of influence should such MDFS use to uplift the rights
of women in nations where such rights are worse off.

2. Should that justification use neoliberal arguments?

If we lined up all the worlds nations on behalf of womens equality,
the bottom 100 nations need a kick in the ass, and somehow this
needs to be achieved without endorsing the militarism of the
neo-liberal imperialsts, or it is self defeating.

If we take the situation in Darfur sudan as an example of terrible
abuse of women, as well as of all human rights... a genocide for
christ takes... then there are neoliberals who want to send in the
army.... and what is our feminist alternative.

I think that liberals need to be able to clarify an ideology in the
thinktanks that sets them free from the imperialists, and i'm
sorta groping in this thread, to see how y'all think we can achieve
better results for women, whilst bringing the army home to defend
the shores it is intended to defend, and not remote asian deserts.

[AP]

8. I'm reading this quickly, but I think this is the Security Mom arg., no?

I mean this is the argument which is supposed to create and sucker security moms.

Imperialism is needed because we're doing it for the women?

OK, domestically, it's a fascist fear tactic. Women are not voting for a goverment which cares about their economic, political and cultural power if they're voting for Republicans. They're voting for a government which wants to make sure their kids have no options but to be a wage slave or cannon fodder unless their families were wealthy, and they're voting for a government that doesn't want their family to accumulate any sort of wealth which would allow them to be anything more that a wage slave (the Republicans just want to keep all its citizens hooked on insupportable debt so they're easy to push around, which is basically the same thing the IMF does to foreign countries).

As for the argument that sexism justifies imperialism, that's a load of crap. We've had imperialism for a long time on this planet. Where is one example of stealing all the wealth of a nation and shipping it off to London, New York, Paris, Berlin, or Houston helping women become more powerful politically? Feminism is ultimately about democracy. Democracy is only possible when wealth flows down to the people and broadly, even if it only starts with the men. Imperialism pushes the day farther and farther into the future when you can have real democracy because it is such a massive shift of wealth away from the people and to a few people at the very top of the economic ladder in their countries and in the foreign country which has colonized them.

The idea that the US should invade muslim countries because it will set the women free is a CROCK OF SHIT.

[AP]

9. Labor unions which ensure that working class people can accumulate $

is the fastest way to a democracy which will ultimately respect women's rights.

The more power there is for the people, the more democracy there will be and women will benefit. And the US foreign policy should be oriented around making sure wealth accumulates in the hands of the people (which was exactly what Edwards argued in that one debate when he said the US should be building non-religious schools in Afghanistan and shouldn't be making deals with Saudi royalty that encourage the accumulation of power in the hands of a very few people at the top of the ladder).

The US should have trade sanctions on countries which don't give women equal economic rights.

But bombing a country, taking it over, and then trying to transfer all its wealth up and out of the country to some Hustonians does NOT help women.

[H2O Man]

11. One can never unite

by dividing. Ever. And so while we can help heal a sick body by cutting out a tumor, for example, we cannot treat it by cutting it in half.

Reconciliation of our problems in the body of humanity likewise can not be treated by dividing. Let me give an example: when black Americans were struggling for civil rights in the 1950s and '60s, they were attempting to heal the disease of racism by unifying, or uniting with the larger white society. Part of this struggle included the Nation of Islam, which of course wanted to separate from the United States. But eventually, through the divine enlightenment which is actually available to all of us, the NOI's most talented member separated from NOI when he realized that only reconciliation could heal America, and hence the world. Malcolm then took "civil rights" from the restrictive context of an American problem, and made it part of "human rights," and in the context of a global problem.

Now that didn't mean Malcolm wanted to break bread with Bull Connor. But it did mean he wanted to re-define the problems in a larger context, and remove false divisions. And Martin began to move in that very same direction. King didn't give up on non-violence at all, of course, but he began to view "civil rights" in a larger context, which included his seeing it's relationship with Vietnam. ( When these two men reached that point, they created a challenge that had to be crushed.)

So, if we want to deal with the problems of today, which have such a deeply rooted historical nature, we have to study that history. And when we do, we find what works, and what fails. It will be impossible to resolve women's problems without recognizing that they are a "human rights" issue. At the same time, we cannot hope for serious gains to be made when we allow ourselves to think in a divisive "male vs female" context. Men are not the only cause of women's problems, and there is no solution that can possibly exclude men.

But you know that. Men and women are not by nature separate. We are a yin-yang by nature. And we can only be agents of change for good in this universe when we have resolved -- and indeed reconciled -- these conflicts within ourselves, much like Brother Malcolm.

[AP]

6. Hello? Through real democracy that allows political economic and cultural

power to flow down to the people and outwards, rather than upwards and narrowly.

One of the reasons neoliberalism is dangerous for feminism is because the few, very rich owners of capital need a cheep labor force and a great way to have a cheap labor force is to have women with few options who live in desperate poverty.

In the US in the 1920s when American workers looked like they might accumulate economic power by having women working, capital got extremely nervous. They told women you were going to be kidnapped or raped or both if you left the house. They just didn't want women to work which would have allowed all the members of their families to have more economic and therefor political power.

If you want a society that respects women's rights you have to get power into the hands of people who work for a living, then you have to get power in the hands of women. It's a bit of a tautology, I know. But cultural, economic and political power all go hand in hand. If you don't have money, nobody is goig to listen to your political issues. The closer women get to money, even if its their working class husbands and fathers who are accumulating it, the more cultural and political power they will have.

That's why neoliberalism doesn't really help women. Neoliberalism is a wealth-concentrating strategy. Even if it's originally articulated as an anti-religion/social progress thing, it doesn't help women because it's not letting working class people accumulate the wealth they need to be politically powerful.

[sweetheart]

41. Thanks AP, very insightful

Progressive taxation == feminist empowerment.. i get it!

Why then, does the democratic party support neoliberalism, if it
is so disempowering to the very interests on which democracy rests?

Is is simply a morph towards being republican-lite to steal the
thunder, or is there a systematic reason.

Why are both parties following a wealth concentrating strategy?

[AP]

44. Neoliberalism is the product of the corporate domination of gov't.

I don't think Democrats want it. But they have a hard time going up against the corporations.

Kerry and Edwards don't take any money from PACs. Edwards has never put corporate interests before the interests of working people.

Edwards said that US aid should be targeted toward creating wealthy middle classes, and not towards propping up oil-billionaires running countries.

I think a change is coming.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Treat women's rights as seriously as we treat racism?

Recall all the pressure that was put on South Africa to end apartheid?

Years ago, I read a newspaper column about the lack of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, and the columnist asked how the world would respond if those same restrictions were applied, not to women, but to a minority race.

How would the world respond if, say, a country required racial minority people of both sexes to veil their faces in public, if it didn't allow racial minority people to attend schools with the majority population or to drive or to travel without the permission of a majority population "master" or to ride the same buses as the majority population or marry without the permission of their majority population "master" and to have their "master" allowed to kill them for violating those restrictions?

That sounds a lot like the restrictions that apartheid-era South Africa actually placed on its black residents, and the world was rightly outraged, but when Saudi Arabia or Taliban-era Afghanistan places the same restrictions on the female half of its population, that's "culture."

The key is not whether a standard of human rights is "Western" but whether the people in the dominant roles would like being put under the same restrictions that they impose on the people in the subordinate roles. South African whites would not have liked being told that they were forbidden to work in certain occupations. Saudi men would not like being confined to their houses unless they had specific permission from a female relative to leave and were required to wear a heavy black veil.

I've always thought that an apt punishment for the Taliban leaders would be to force them to live the rest of their lives under the same restrictions that they imposed on the female half of the Afghan population: virtual house arrest.

[noiretextatique]

14. not everyone takes racism seriously

recall all the defenders of apartheid, including many members of the bush cabal? and in south africa, like right here in the USA, being "equal" after centuries of oppression means very little without the means (education, for example) to participate in the newly bestowed equality.
as long as women are blamed for the downfall of man in various religions (or interpretations of them)...

[sweetheart]

28. Between racicsm and womens equality

It does seem that the former gets more political stress when it is
overt than the latter. "culture" has been used to excuse some
policies that are near slavery were they seen in the light of
racism, and i think maybe that is a good idea to call it racism
and drive the stake in deep.

There must be a way to inspire cultures that are notoriously unjust
to women, to change outside of armed intervention. Even calling it
human rights is a fallacy, as the united states itself rejects
human rights and will not ratify the United nations universal
declaration. And human rights, is used as a reason for war,
more often than not, which is again that neoliberal hydra appearing
in an appearantly benign form.

[noiretextatique]

31. "seem" is the appropriate qualifier

it does "seem" that way. but, when you look at race and gender,
it's not surprising that those who are not white and not male are at the bottom of the heap.
but i agree that it is still far more acceptable to oppose women's rights than to support systems such as apartheid.

[loyalsister]

56. We had credibility to discuss racism

We have no credibility to even begin to discuss women's issues with other countries right now. We haven't passed the ERA.
Beyond that, I once heard someone say that noone can be "given" power. Because in that case the person who gives it has some control.
Empowerment is something that must be pursued by the individuals who want it. From our end, I think the best we can do is support internal efforts with applause.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. There is no simple answer to this

However, improved access to education and job opportunities for women always leads to overall economic improvement for a nation. Macroeconomists identify it as a crucial element in countries that have emerged from third to first world economic status. It is also identified as a major reason for failure when opportunities for women are limited. Some have theorized that one of the main reasons that the Nazi Third Reich was unable to prevail (thank god) was Hitler's refusal to engage women in it. Contrast that to the US, where women were actively involved in the industries that supported the war effort and maintained the economy at home. So, I think the key to promoting feminism in the world is the economy, not the military.

[noiretextatique]

17. isn't religion the real problem?

isn't it the really, really, big problem that underlies the oppression of women, in general?

[Kanary]

18. welllllllll, some are.......

The pagan goddess religions didn't oppress women.

Most Native American religious beliefs didn't/don't oppress women, given that their societies are matriarchal and matrilineal.

:)

Which, of course, is what scared the heck out of the christians.......

:evilgrin:

Kanary

[noiretextatique]

20. indeed...but oppressive patriarchial religions

and religionista who blame women for the downfall of man, and who still preach that the nature of women is evil and corrupting...i see that as the biggest problem to acheiving equality for women.

[K-W]

19. No, religion is mysoginistic because thats how men made it.

Not visa-versa.

[noiretextatique]

21. agreed...i mention the interpretation of religion

surely...no one can deny that isn't still a huge problem.

[K-W]

22. Definately, and it wont be solved until women hold positions of power

in religious organizations.

[noiretextatique]

23. i'm not sure that is the solution

but perhaps as more people adopt a more humanistic interpretation of some religions...perhaps that will make a difference.

[K-W]

24. Why would completely male organization adopt a more humanistic approach?

Its not like this is some conspircy. When only men make decisions for an institution, the result is going to be biased policy. You get institutions to humanize by making thier leadership reflect humanity better.

[noiretextatique]

25. or you stop supporting the corrupted institutions

if they are discredited enough. perhaps that's why there are so many ex-catholics.
think the taliban is interested in "reflecting humanity better?"
hardly...since one of their basic tenets is the oppression of the female half of humanity.

[K-W]

29. Well I think getting women involved in organized religion is more likely

to be accomplished than tearing it down.

[noiretextatique]

30. how exactly does that work?

if you have ZERO power according to the religion's doctrines, practices, etc?

[K-W]

32. Are you arguing that reform is impossible?

Yes, getting women in the power structure of organized realigions would require a great deal of reform, but doing what you are suggesting and destroying organized religion as we know it would require quite a bit more reform.

[noiretextatique]

34. no, i don't think the taliban can be "reformed"

anymore than fundamentalist christianity can be reformed.
i do think "organized religion as we know it" needs to be destroyed...if it supports oppression of certain classes of humans.
it's not an impossibility...it's happening: it called evolution.

[K-W]

35. You dont see that you are contradicting yourself?

We shouldnt try to reform organized religion because it would be too difficult, but we should try to destroy organized religion.

You are missing the rather obvious fact that destroying organized religion would be more difficult to do than reforming it.

[noiretextatique]

37. how do you "reform" the taliban?

i've asked you this a few times now...and as of yet, you haven't responded with your plan.
yes, organized religion is too corrupt to "reform," and is being replaced (and will continue to be replaced) by supra-religious spirituality. that's not reform...it's revolution. a revolution of consciousness, if you will...a shift away from fear-based, hierarchial belief systems.
and yes...this is the revolution that will truly change the world as we know it.

[K-W]

38. The taliban is not a religion, so that doesnt relate to this conversation.

[noiretextatique]

39. fundamentalist reform

please expound on your plan to reform fundamentalist religious belief systems and their institutions. since you are intent on reform, please tell me how that will happen.

[K-W]

40. You dont seem to understand.

There isnt some magic strategy here.

The reforms have already started, more progressive churches have female clergy now. It is just a matter of working towards progress. Churche's are extremely conservative institutions, so progress is slow, but churches reform with society. All religions reform over time. It is just a matter of continuing to fight the social battle for female equality. Slowly women are gaining ground in religion in the US and europe, because women have gained ground in our society.

Countries like afghanistan don't have effective feminist movements because of the instability and violence. When everyone is worried about warlords killing them people dont bother with the struggle for social reform.

[noiretextatique]

45. actually...i agree with you...except

afghanistan actually does have a feminist movement that has been very effective in educating the world about the taliban. and certainly the changes to their lives since the taliban came into power wasn't incremental or slow...it was fairly swift. sure religions are "reforming," and just as surely, more people are adopting less traditional religions.
you know...the more i ponder this, i think one of the problems with our side is the continued belief that change must occur slowly, whereas the rw doesn't seem to share that view.
perhaps that has something to do with the desire to form a consensus first before taking action.
one thing i do know: people are tired of "slowly."

[K-W]

46. You can tire of slowly all you want, wishing doesnt make it different.

Do many people overstate the difficultu of change to discourage it? Yes. Does that mean that change can be as rapid as we want it, No.

The fact is that the only way to create progress is to work towards it with no expectation of success. It could come quickly, it could come slowly. If you expect it quickly you only set yourself up for dissapointment and disillusionment.

[noiretextatique]

47. change doesn't have to be slow...the natural world teaches us that

there can be no progress without a sustaining vision...it keeps you going when you can't see any success.
the way change happens is that people make it happen...period. if everyone in the world woke up tomorrow and said: "enough already...no more wars, no more hunger, no more injustice," things would change.
in america, we have been sold a set of increasing lower expectations...of who we are as a people, of what we stand for, and of what we CAN EXPECT from our government. we have a so-called two-party system that offers little in the way of hope...just that one guy won't be as bad as the other one.
we're on a see-saw...one party gives a little, the other party comes in a takes it away...the other party comes back to clean up the mess, but gives in to the other side a little bit more each time.
this gives us "welfare reform" instead of universal health care, affordable child care, and a living wage.
go slow is not a message that resonates with people, nor does it have to be "the way things are."
a perfect example is what happens when disasters do occur. during those times, people tend to put aside their petty differences and work together...perhaps because survival is foremost in their minds. and sure there are those who loot and take advantage of the situation, but there are also those who crawl under a crushed freeway to try to save people's lives, like people did here in oakland after the earthquake. perhaps social disasters can inspire the same since of urgency in people, rather than lemming-like accpetance and fatalistic notions about what can and cannot happen...and when.
perhaps it's just a matter of creating that sense of urgency.
anyway...thanks for an interesting discussion...it's given me much to think about.

[sweetheart]

33. Getting radical

Rent a room in the local library and hold a bible study, where
you teach the feminist values asserted by jesus. You may never
break the gates of orthodox islam, but who needs to. Religions
need participants to be powerful, and maybe women who feel
disenfranchised, should re-enfranchise themselves through direct
action.

What is organized religion, if not people pretending to be wise in
order to elevate the consciousness of thier fellow human beings.
Well, there is no reason why any feminist can't simply evangelize
the goddess. :-)

[noiretextatique]

36. my friend is a minister in the MCC church

but i seriously doubt she's be accepted in the traditional southern baptist church.
she'd be nuts to even try to be accepted there...why bother?
goddess worship...i'm all for it :D

[K-W]

42. Progress takes time, there is no way to get around that.

It takes excruciating time.

[noiretextatique]

48. perhaps that's because of the opposition to some progress

bush, inc has made remarkable progress in implementing its plans.

[Eloriel]

26. I reject your prmise(s), utterly

First, I don't reconcile neoliberalism with anything. I reject it.

Second, this makes no sense to me at all:

In micro-feminism, surviving as a woman in a patriarchal culture that systematically represses women, can involve being ruthless, and
being a "bitch", to demand equal treatment.

Standing up for and demanding one's rights is being a bitch if you're female? Requires ruthlessness? Hmm, strange ideas you've got about women and feminism, methinks.

I'm not even sure I understand what the hell you're talking about vis a vis macro/micro feminism.

In any case, others have provided some decent answers (apparently they understand you better than I do), so I'll just add this point:

It's been my experience and observation that feminism requires consciousness-raising. Once those consciousnesses get raised, women are more than capabale of figuring out ways to work to secure more equality for themselves. And yes, there are plenty of things that can be done diplomatically and via international organizations including international laws, none of which needs to have anything whatsever to do with neoliberalism. (I guess that's yet another reason I reject your premises.)

[sweetheart]

27. macro micro and democratic party appraoches

I am curious about this because "our" democratic party endorses a
form of neoliberalism not so different than republicans. In this
regard, using the army to invade other countries, has been defended
here on DU as supporting feminism. That is why i bring it up.

I also reject neoliberalism, but to reject that politically these
days means voting green... and since we're democrats, its relevant.

What i mean by macro and micro, is like in economics. Macro would
be inducing womens rights in another country like say, egypt. Micro
would be internal to our own culture, in women getting higher
standards of living.

What i meant by the ruthless comment, is that women have to fight to
get equal treatment. Maybe you don't... maybe you don't work in an
environment like a wall street bank, where there is strong bias that
you must daily reject using qualities i summed up as "bitch"iness,
for lack of a better word. I've even seen a t-shirt, that says
"nice women get nowhere, i'm a bitch." I think that many women
have the experience of having to fight for their equality, and that
perception then extends, out of ignorance, to their perceptions on
foreign policy.. that the army must fight to defeat the taliban so
that the still-living female population of afganistan has equal
rights... B52 feminism.

My premises, BTW are that womens equality gets the back burner, and
is only brought up by those in power, when it serves their
propaganda instincts. Then i'm saying that neoliberalism is toxic
to feminism, (like you say, you reject it totally, as do I), yet
Democratic party policy is corporatism-lite, and does not. So how,
can feminism be fairly supported as a body of policies that clearly
distances itself from neoliberal approaches, when the very interest
in "consciousness raising" is based on "the enlightenment" from
which neoliberalism derives its roots.

[Eloriel]

50. Wellll,,,,

What i meant by the ruthless comment, is that women have to fight to
get equal treatment. Maybe you don't... maybe you don't work in an
environment like a wall street bank, where there is strong bias that
you must daily reject using qualities i summed up as "bitch"iness,
for lack of a better word. I've even seen a t-shirt, that says
"nice women get nowhere, i'm a bitch."

Im 56. Of COURSE I've had to fight for my rights and equal treatment, and I still do, every day right here at DU. How unfortunate that causes you to think of me and perhaps yourself as a "bitch" instead of just a strong woman. How would you characterize a Martin Luther King, Jr.? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Or for that matter, is Maxine Waters a bitch? Or Sheila Jackson Lee? How about people like Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and so many others? Was MLKJr "ruthless"? He took his philosophy from Gandhi -- was Gandhi "ruthless"?

Or is it your opinion that speaking up strongly and firmly is somehow wrong, that everyone should just get along nicely, with no conflict allowed?

I think that many women
have the experience of having to fight for their equality, and that
perception then extends, out of ignorance, to their perceptions on
foreign policy.. that the army must fight to defeat the taliban so
that the still-living female population of afganistan has equal
rights... B52 feminism

Don't be silly, Patriarchy-supporting women will buy -- and parrot -- patriarchy's lies and the rest of us will know better.

My premises, BTW are that womens equality gets the back burner, and
is only brought up by those in power, when it serves their
propaganda instincts.

Congratulations, you've finally made a coherent point. It's not, however, news.

Then i'm saying that neoliberalism is toxic
to feminism, (like you say, you reject it totally, as do I), yet
Democratic party policy is corporatism-lite, and does not. So how,
can feminism be fairly supported as a body of policies that clearly
distances itself from neoliberal approaches, when the very interest
in "consciousness raising" is based on "the enlightenment" from
which neoliberalism derives its roots.

Aw, geez. You were doing so well there for a minute, but then you went all mushy again.

Consciousness-raising has nothing to do with "the Enlightenment" and DEFINITELY has nothing to do with neoliberalism. Consciousness-raising got started in the late 1960s, rather spontaneously, when women started getting together to talk about their lives and learned that "the personal is the political," that the contents of their personal lives were part and parcel of a very firmly entrenched society-wide system of oppression aimed at keeping women down. We became our own social critics, our own sociologists. Our own historians, researchers, even healthcare providers (some revolutionary stuff went on in that arena, let me tell you!) And the more we discovered about our joint and individual plight as women, the angrier we got and the more intent on making serious changes in the way we were treated. AND we went on to inform/educate (raise the consciousness of) other women who found themselves similarly motivated to see things change.

So how,
can feminism be fairly supported as a body of policies that clearly
distances itself from neoliberal approaches,

Again, I have no idea what your question is -- fiarly supported by whom? Feminism is for the most part antithetical to neoliberalism. So you teach women about authentic feminism (not this postmodern crap, either -- which I'm about to be concerned has informed your view). The rest of us aren't fooled.

I also reject neoliberalism, but to reject that politically these
days means voting green... and since we're democrats, its relevant.


Nonsense. If you think that's your only political choice, I guess that would explain a lot about the rest of your comments. What you do is change the party from the ground up as Howard Dean is working hard to do. He's also working his ass off for Kerry which is the PRAGMATIC thing to do to eradicate the current menace, but there are also 1000 Dean candidates, many of whom were "merely" Dean supporters at one point not long ago, running for office at all levels from local to state to federal. And believe me, Dean's no neoliberal. (One of the reasons his own party killed him, politically speaking.)

[sweetheart]

51. There's no wrong in being a "bitch"

It means to me, a hard ass, like men are in business much of the
time, and somehow for a woman to replicate the ruthless hardass
business person, is culturally wrong. I think you presume i think it is wrong;
Hardly. Someone who does not have the fighting hardware will die
in modern anti-feminist america. It is highly respected, IMO, and
i think you misinterpret how i meant that. Ghandi was intensely
ruthless. He cut the british apart like butter, and held nothing
back for justice.

I only fault "B52" approaches when they cross over in to foreign
policy. On the home front its all fair game.

Consciousness raising is older than western civilization, and is
as present in the enlightenment, emerson, and the british
sufferegette movement, as it was in the 1960's. The enlightenment
includes the philosophical basis of our entire system of education,
what knowledge is, and that it be preserved beyond race and gender,
time and culture. Knowledge clearly is that women and men are
equal, yet that very vehicle has been coopted, as you know, and
chide me for stating the obvious.

I had a heated debate the other day in LBN with a few "liberal"
feminists who supported the afganistan war by their feminism.
It left me wondering what is going on in a democratic party that
includes us all, as clearly the neoliberal DLC branch of the party
i'm voting for in a month, is blatantly at odds with feminism.

Your clarification that you're allied with the democratic wing of the
democratic party makes perfect sense... and i see the light. :-)
There is no reconciliation... just tolerance. I'm glad feminists
like you are out there following their hearts.

namaste,
-s

[noiretextatique]

52. curious...would you mind expanding on what you call the b-52

approach abroad? you say it's fine on the homefront, but not abroad...thanks. people who support the war in afghanistan...because they're feminists?!?! that's a new one on me :7

[buddhamama]

53. i've heard it from "feminists"

supporting the war in afghanistan to rid the country of the taliban so their sisters could be free.

sad.

[noiretextatique]

62. truly sad

to think our govenment actually give a damn...

[sweetheart]

54. B52 feminism

is an oxymoron. Learning to fight for survival, some feminists have
developed such a strong fighing instinct, learning to manipulate
people socially and all the tricks in the book, that it has
become incorporated in to their greater view of feminism, as self
defense of a woman could certainly be called... yet truth be told,
it is their masculine side dog-pissing with a patriarchal culture,
and it is not feminist.

But the euphemism that feminism can be won by confrontation and
conflict has been celibrated by this misunderstanding.

Its my fault for mixing definitions. I should have from the outset
in this thread called that faux-feminism, as it is not true feminism.
Sadly, however, in a culture of uneducated survivors, this is not
obvious. American culture is uniquely confrontational, and in-your-face.
When a faux feminist takes the sort of tone that keeps food on the
table in american business, in to a culture where those sorts of
energies are deemed below civilized, it can be embarassing.

It strikes me that the same confronational tone that might win a
goldman sachs secretary a closet payout of 1 million cash for sexual
descriminiation for silence, is the tone that confronts other cultures with hard-diplomacy for intransigence against women (b52's).

My lesson of this thread, is to see and approach this issue 100%
through economic equalty, and not directly. AP is right.

[noiretextatique]

61. well, i'm all for self-defense

frankly...i think the lack of it is still far more problematic than the reverse that you describe. by that i mean...there are far more women being sexually harrassed in silence than getting paid to remain silent about being sexually harrassed.
i hear a kind of classism in your post that really doesn't reflect the reality of life for many women in america. i can apply what you're saying to some of the female managers i've worked with, but not to the clerks in the accounts payable department (almost all of them are females).
interestingly enough, it's the latter group who've had the least exposure to feminism, faux or real.
as to self-defense, i wish more women would live by this motto i heard from a black, female comedianne:
"i gotta get yoked, so i don't get smoked."

as a black woman, i call tell you that i get more shit from women about being "agressive" than i do from men. racism isn't acceptable...my ass! it's just gone underground.

[sweetheart]

64. layers of learning

I respect your comment. Many women have not gotten to the stage in
life, even as adults, where they are economically solvent and capable
of the full range of masculine and feminine expressions that allow
them to be materially successful in the world.

This is a terribly sad thing, with so many parties to blame from
parents, to schools, government and whatnot.

However, when the woman DOES achieve that solvency, only then
can she have distance from it, as in mastery, it no longer chains
her, and she is free to be feminine or masculine without the stigma
of stereotypes, following her free heart. My buddhist master once
commented whilst teaching women's enlightenment in a room of several
hundred women. "You've got to climb to the top of the tower before
you can jump off." It was a metaphorical allegory for the
learning process, and that jumping off, was the ultimate step in
learning, forgetting all the history and being fluid and formless
to life now without preconception.

Madonna once might have backstabbed other women around her who
threatened her uniqueness, but now as a sucess, she can tongue
brittany without threat. She has jumped off, whilst brittany is
still climbing, and between the 2, brittany is the one who will
stab a fellow climber in the back... like she did the ex-fiance
of her fiance. Dogs will fight over food if there is not enough.
It is sickening to me, in our culture, that as magnificent human
beings, we are culturally reduced by the neoliberal appraoch twowards
dog eat dog darwinism...

peace,
-s

[noiretextatique]

67. thanks for your reply, sweetheart

i hear what you are saying...on the other hand, as more of us reject scarcity as the reality of things, perhaps we can stop fighting over crumbs.
a good way to keep people acting like dogs is to convince them there isn't enough food for everyone.

[H2O Man]

55. Two errors:

And I point these out in a friendly manner, because I know that you are a sincere and decent human being:

{1} Gandhi was not "ruthless." The fact that you mis-spelled his name suggests that you are not familiar with Gandhi, and I suspect that you are not clear on the meaning of "ruthless." It means, quite literally (and ONLY) to be without ruth ....meaning without compasion. And to say that Gandhi was without compassion is to miss the entire point.

Gandhi did not cut through the British Empire, my friend. That is not what happened AT ALL. He was a great soul -- the Mahatma -- but he was not a successful political force. That was, in the strangely beautiful way that Gandhi was human, why he was so important.

{2} One never defeats one's enemies by becoming like them. One example will do: would Gandhi have been the Mahatma had he taken up the sword?

I am hoping that you will accept this in the spirit it is intended!

[sweetheart]

58. Whitewashing Gandhi

He was merciless, in exactly those terms with the imperial british
empire.. not individuals. I mean ruthless in that tone.

If bush called me up tomorrow and promised me a job in his new
administration of i would change my vote, i would ruthlessly hang
up on the asshole, out of compassion.

Female predator species are the huntresses, and are merciless killers
as even the israeli army has discovered, women make excellent killers,
even more so than men. There is a lovely scene in "cold mountain"
where an old woman kills a pet goat by cutting its throat, all
the while whispering sweet love to it. Death is part of life.
We all have the killer in us, even Mohandas Mahatma.

[H2O Man]

60. As Kerry noted,

there is a time when "stubborn" works against us. (grin) You do not know enough about Gandhi, because you repeat the same error .... take some time to read about how Gandhi dealt with the British Empire. Don't try to shift in a debate: it allows you opponent to call your bluff. For example, I'll use you "white wash" comment against you easily -- name 5 instances where Gandhi was without compassion in his dealing with the British? Wait, that's too hard! Name one!(wink) Or, here's an easy one: name a single time that Gandhi choose not to deal with the British as individuals, (where he could call upon their individual conscience) and focused on them as a group?

Again, I admire much of your contributions on DU. I think this is a serious subject. But you err on Gandhi.

[sweetheart]

63. results in error

I can only point to the result that the empire lost india largely
due to the influence he brought to bear, and that was unbending
intent, like a volcanic phenomenon of nature.

I certainly don't mean it in any particular interaction, and right
that i've not read much on him, only having spent a year or so in
india. Just the british were sent out, as his intent rallied the
whole country, it was so strong and unbending.

I call that ruthless. Perhaps the word sounds mean, but is not
a volcano ruthless? What made him so powerful, IMO, is that his
approach was victorious at the outset, it was seen by friend and
foe as unbending... "ruthess?"

It is not about whether i'm wrong or right... we're chatting about
definitions of words, truth be told, and my usage of ruthless does
not deny any compassion. I would ruthlessly vote down bush on
behalf of millions of disenfranchised poeple who move my heart.

Perhaps, if ruthless is wrong, then "unbending intent" is less
emotive. Thanks. :-)

[H2O Man]

65. Perhaps a good word for you would be

Satyagraha. Take the time needed to learn more about both Gandhi and the movement in India. History is filled with ironies. Gandhi was more successful in his early days in the areas of civil rights and labor laws. He did, within the context of the Indian Congress, help to initiate the campaign for independence. Yet while he would become loved as the conscience of his country, his political skills were not equal to Jawaharial Nehru. For obvious reasons, Gandhi was far more loved than Nehru .... especially by their enemies in the British government. (Ho Chi Minh once said if France had ruled India, Gandhi would have died young.) In fact, many of Gandhi's political opponents held him in greater affection than did some he was allied with politically.

See what happens when you get an old man started rambling on?

[Tsiyu]

57. Men have to fight too

We all have to fight in some way. Show our negative side, our agressive side.
Women didn't win suffrage in the US by standing back and hoping men or corporations or "neo-liberals" would happily give them the right to vote.

And women have been yelling at bears, and brandishing weapons to protect the homestead for a very long time. A mama protecting her children in the fiercest way possible IS the definition of feminine.

We've fought in wars, and if we haven't acheived all of the highest offices, we're getting there. But there is a backlash currently, which is responsible for the pejoratives: bitch, man-hater. blah blah.

Waging war on another nation to "liberate" its women would be a most hypocritical act until America treats her women with more respect and parity.

[sweetheart]

66. All human beings are both masculine and feminine

One is dominant, but certainly both are present in all. I presume
this from the outset in this chat, seeing the repression of feminism
as a folly for all human beings, not just "females".

Justice beats in all hearts, and beyond in the enlightened spirit
that, when we're open to it, is our very highest and most noble self.

When we repress one half of our nature, it distorts the whole world.

Men/(masculne dominant) who are naturally emotional and sensitive are raised to think
they are powerful and stoic.

Women (feminine dominant) who are natually powerful and connected to
the earth beyond emotion are raised to think of themselves as weak
and emotionally sensitive.

Then we get a society of total confusion with people perceiving in
the opposite sex's stereotype, their own very nature, as they are
so perverted as to be almost reversed... and it only weakens both.

Men, in their true form are extremely refined and sensitive, women
lucid and powerful. Discussing liberating women is discussing
enlightenment of all sentient beings, as we are all women in this
thread. :-)

[buddhamama]

43. a somewhat simple answer/s

1) I don't think neoliberalism and feminism can be reconciled.

2) It's not about feminism per se but equality, and that, imo, can only be achieved thru enlightened governments. Securalism goes far but, Moneyed interests have to be dealt with too. There lies the real problem Money and Power.

[Tsiyu]

49. I've often wondered if we took all the men out of

Palestine and Israel, would the women be able to hold potlucks and work their differences out over Matzo balls and rugelach and goat? If we took the testosterone away for a week or two, would women set rules that were fair to children, women and men?

Dunno the answer to that. And I am squirmish about the terms "neeoh-liberal," "neo-con," blah blah blah though I understand the need for a vernacular.

In truth, every action is an historic one. The way you treat people, women, men, children, is an example and a lesson to someone. We need to clean our own houses first.

My humble opinion.

On edit: fatfinger disease

[lostnfound]

59. Instead of focusing on what you want to kill, feed what you want to grow.

A process of empowerment of women through microloans and educational opportunities for example could work in many places.

The growth of women's collectives and of fair-trade opportunities can help.

Solutions to these problems must be organic and respected as a process, moving from less-free to more-free, not demanding instant results.