Women's suffrage, women's liberation, feminism: Proactive or reactive?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It seems to me that the take of a lot of conservatives on women's suffrage, women's liberation and feminism can be summarized as follows: For several millennia men turned away from God and away from their roles and responsibilities as men; then women responded to that sin with their own system of turning away from God, turning away from their roles and responsibilities as women, and sinning. That "response to men's sin" is collectively, pejoratively called Feminism.

What I notice about that take is that is does not respect women as rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of initiating good and evil. It seems to say that when women organized and carried out a social and political movement of their own that it was simply a knee jerk reaction to men.

I happen to believe that women are not Pavlovian dogs responding to men. I happen to believe that women are rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of making original contributions to the world. And I happen to believe that women are capable of initiating good and evil independent of the thoughts and actions of men.

We are all taught, it seems, that the modern women's movement has been either an unrighteous knee jerk reaction to men or a righteous fight for justice. Is it not possible that some of it has been neither? Is it not possible that some of it has been savvy, opportunistic women seizing power? In other words, rather than all of them naively, ignorantly, foolishly "responding to men's sin", from the very beginning some of them have connived and exploited men's sin and men's guilt. I have not read the book, but judging from what I know about Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man, at least one woman does not buy into the dichotomy of women having good intentions but unrighteous means or women being the righteous defenders of justice.

Is it not possible that women have known what they are doing and that it hasn't always been with good or honest intentions?

The answer seems obvious to me. If women aren't rational moral agents who are capable of originating and initiating good and evil, then they can't be held responsible for their actions one way or the other and the whole controversy over the modern women's movement and feminism is a big tautology.

Yet, people get extremely wound up and passionate about the controversy, so it must not be a tautology. Could it be that people have their history wrong? Could it be that the historical record can be interpreted as showing that the modern women's movement and feminism has very much been proactive?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Could it be that the historical record can be interpreted as showing that the modern women's movement and feminism has very much been proactive?

I don't know. Feminism seems to have ushered in rampant divorce, abortion on demand, and numerous STD epidemics due to 'free love' and wide use of 'the pill'. It has also dropped the birth rate to unsustainable levels so we have had to use lots of immigrants to gain a stable tax base to fund government. Many guys don't mind not having to 'buy the cow to get the milk' so we can't solely blame women for the problems, but I think its fair to say feminism isn't a good thing for society.

 

[horuhe00]

I'm all for equality, but there's a reason there are two sexes. Each sex has things its better at doing and worse at doing. If women were made to do the same things as men, and men were made to do the same things as women, then God wouldn't have put a need for having two sexes.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I don't know. Feminism seems to have ushered in rampant divorce, abortion on demand, and numerous STD epidemics due to 'free love' and wide use of 'the pill'. It has also dropped the birth rate to unsustainable levels so we have had to use lots of immigrants to gain a stable tax base to fund government. Many guys don't mind not having to 'buy the cow to get the milk' so we can't solely blame women for the problems, but I think its fair to say feminism isn't a good thing for society.

I'm all for equality, but there's a reason there are two sexes. Each sex has things its better at doing and worse at doing. If women were made to do the same things as men, and men were made to do the same things as women, then God wouldn't have put a need for having two sexes.

The question remains: Has the modern women's movement been a proactive movement or a knee jerk reaction?

In my estimation, if anything in gender politics has been a knee jerk reaction it is the conservative/Religious Right/"family values"/fundamentalist movement. Women's liberation, rather than reacting to anything, has set the tone, it seems to me. It is the anti-feminists and the "family values" conservatives who have been reactive and not proactive, it seems to me.

Again, it is a question about historical relationships. Value judgements such as whether the modern women's movement has been good, bad, right, wrong, etc. are not the issue.

 

[Autumnleaf]

The question remains: Has the modern women's movement been a proactive movement or a knee jerk reaction?

In my estimation, if anything in gender politics has been a knee jerk reaction it is the conservative/Religious Right/"family values"/fundamentalist movement. Women's liberation, rather than reacting to anything, has set the tone, it seems to me. It is the anti-feminists and the "family values" conservatives who have been reactive and not proactive, it seems to me.

Again, it is a question about historical relationships. Value judgements such as whether the modern women's movement has been good, bad, right, wrong, etc. are not the issue.

If you mean proactive as in more thought out, I agree with you.

The conservative movement has been more like the guy in the old story of the guy who's camel has to stay outside the tent in a sand storm. The camel asks if he can stick his nose into the tent so the sand won't hurt it and they guys says sure old pal Then the camel asks if he can go in the tent up to his eyes and the guy says of course, all the while the man inches out of the tent to make room for the camel. Eventually the man is out in the sandstorm and the camel is in the tent. The man is left wondering what happened, where did things go wrong? This is how we go from a society where rednecks beating up homosexuals for fun is typically tolerated to seriously considering gay marriage.

 

[horuhe00]

I think the feminist movement is reactive to wanting to do "what men do" and reject "what women do".

 

[Illandur]

I do not think simply catagorizing such large social movements in terms of being proactive or reactive is sufficient in any modern historiographical context. Such catagorization is based upon a model which historians sometimes refer to as "the impact-response model", which sees one agency as the active element and another as passive, responding to the actions of the opposing agency. This type of model is one which has been rejected by most modern historians due to the subjective distortions inherent in such thought.

Once again, the question of gender identity is brought into such a thread, this time by Horuhe00. From a modern perspective, the concepts of masculinity and femininity as well as any elements we attach to these two concepts are ultimately a construct of our own society. They are a part of our ever-changing culture and the values we associate with these concepts change to adapt to our needs, desires and beliefs.

 

[Anderlecht]

Feminism seems to have ushered in rampant divorce, abortion on demand, and numerous STD epidemics due to 'free love'

Did feminism ushered those things or did it came with them as part of the "modernism package" so to speak?

And speaking of epidemics, the desire to pass the buck must definitely be among the most contageous pademics that are out there.

 

[Fallimar]

Speaking as a modern female with no religious affiliations;

I believe the leaps in equality seeking are caused (as pretty much everything else) by the changing of values with the change of times. In the past, one did as one was told or you died. For example, a peasant in medieval times would have died of either starvation or beheading if he didn't adhere to his role as stated by his feudal lord. Nowadays, as there is so much choice in what we do, and we've finally woken up to the fact that all people are individuals and important... Well. It is increasingly common not to define roles by race, age, gender or religion anymore. Each situation, even in the case of the controversial such as abortion or euthenasia, deserves its own look at all the specifics... I mean, if a twelve year old girl is raped and falls pregnant, it would be abject cruelty to refuse to allow her to have an abortion.

Ok, enough rabbiting. In short, it has all come about because of changes in the way that society sees itself. We are no longer bound by the roles that were necessary in the past, technology and evolution in our mentality have meant that it is necessary for women to escape from obsolete roles.

 

[MercuryAndy]

fallimar i dont think he would have. i think its more likely he would be kicked off the land they worked/lived on.

it realy depends if your talking before or after the pesents revolt.

 

[horuhe00]

... We are no longer bound by the roles that were necessary in the past, technology and evolution in our mentality have meant that it is necessary for women to escape from obsolete roles.

I have a proble with this statement. If women escape from their historical roles of maintaining the home while the man is away working, taking care of the children, and feeding the family (among many others), then who will?

Since the feminist movement (and sexual revolution) in the 1960's, there's unrefutable evidence that more couples divorce, less women know how to cook, we eat much more junk food as a result, causing obesety and more health problems, children left home alone because both parents are out working, leaving the doors open for them to do things they shouldn't, and causing social and mental conditions in children that weren't common 50 years ago.

Traditional women's roles are far from obsolete, but you are right in one thing. Women are escaping from their roles.