The Female Dynamic

The history of feminism reaches far back before the 18th century, but the seeds of the feminist movement were planted during the latter portion of that century. The earliest works on the so-called "woman question" criticised the restrictive role of women, without necessarily claiming that women were disadvantaged. In both World Wars, manpower shortages brought women into traditionally male occupations, ranging from manufacturing and mechanical work to a female baseball league. By demonstrating that women could do "men's work", and highlighting society's dependence on their labour, this shift encouraged women to strive for equality.

Many feminists also fought to change perceptions of female sexual behaviour. Since it was often considered more acceptable for men to have multiple sexual partners, many feminists encouraged women into "sexual liberation" and having sex for pleasure with multiple partners leading to a new dating revolution were women offered to pay half the check with "woman money" as a way to show that a woman's worth in society was not determined by her looks, that she was not an ornament up for sale to the highest bidder.

Modern day feminism has taken a sharp u-turn back towards pre-70's ideals. “Jurassic feminists shudder at the retro implication of a quid profiterole. But it doesn't matter if the woman is making as much money as the man, or more, she expects him to pay, both to prove her desirability and as a way of signaling romance - something that's more confusing in a dating culture rife with casual hookups and group activities.”(“What's a Modern Girl to Do?” By Maureen Dowd, New York Times, 10/30/2005)

Since this reversion has affected the dating scene, it has also crossed into the institute of marriage. " ‘Ms.’ was supposed to neutralize the stature of women, so they weren't publicly defined by their marital status. When The (New York) Times finally agreed to switch to Ms. in its news pages in 1986, after much hectoring by feminists, Gloria Steinem sent flowers to the executive editor, Abe Rosenthal. But nowadays most young brides want to take their husbands' names and brag on the moniker Mrs., a brand that proclaims you belong to him. T-shirts with "MRS." emblazoned in sequins or sparkly beads are popular wedding-shower gifts. (Dowd) I’ve always wondered why their isn’t a moniker signaling a married man vs. a single man?

What about the man’s viewpoint? “I'd been noticing a trend…famous and powerful men took up with young women whose job it was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants…” John Schwartz of The New York Times noted the trend in 2004 when he reported: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." A study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggested that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent. “They worry that men still veer away from "challenging" women because of a male atavistic desire to be the superior force in a relationship.” (Dowd)

So it is not just a trend, rather a natural instinct, according to this research. But has this viewpoint been the cause of the 70’s feminism to retreat into modern day feminism where women seem to be looking for male approval? A ‘natural’ instinct to back down to a man in order not to intimidate him and in return, win his approval? Let’s hope not but my fear is that it is. Granted women are no longer burning their bras, rather ordering more breast-enhancing bras from Victoria’s Secret. But is this actually a new power assertion?

Note: You should never comprise who you are or your beliefs in order to conform to a standard or even to win someone's heart. If someone does not love you for who you are, then you are better off without them. At the same token, never hold yourself in too high a regard...for it is a lonely place you seek.

Pornography

Today’s Rant is going to talk about my second favorite topic…pornography. Heeeeyyyyy, how you doin’?!

If you believe in the Bible, you accept the fact that Eve enticed Adam to bite the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. And with this bite, came the realization of sexuality. If you believe in a more scientific standpoint, then you agree that animals, including humans, have a natural instinct to procreate. So what is wrong with pornography and the incentive of its actions?

Religious faiths would say it encourages pre-marital and extra-marital sex. I say, if they stop making sex taboo and secretive and accept this knowledge bestowed upon us from the beginning of humankind, than maybe less people will cheat on their spouses. (Maybe not, but it was worth mentioning) Think about this, if Adam had not taken a bite of that apple, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. Unless of course we were all blessed with the Holy Spirit’s divine intervention and had our mother’s bear us through ‘immaculate conception’.

Another argument against pornography comes from a mostly lesbian and asexual female collaboration. Their viewpoint is that pornography encourages violence against women as well as rape. “Pornography does not simply create a climate in which sex and violence are interchangeable; it widens the range of behavior considered acceptable from men in heterosexual intercourse-behavior which reiteratively strips women of their autonomy, dignity and sexual potential, including the potential of loving and being loved by women in mutuality and integrity.” (Adrienne Rich, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, 1980)*

And who partakes in this climate? Women! If this is true, then women need to point the fingers at themselves. If a female porn star lets someone else degrade them for money, for others to view, shouldn’t they take any responsibility? Well you could pull a ‘Linda Lovelace’ and say how you were ‘forced’ to partake in these actions.

“The most pernicious message relayed by pornography is that women are natural sexual prey to men and love it, that sexuality and violence are congruent, and that for women sex is essentially masochistic, humiliation pleasurable, physical abuse erotic.” (Rich) I agree that there is pornography that is all these things…and even worse, but is it right to categorize all pornography? What about soft pornography or scenes in a movie where the two performers are ‘making love’? Where is the line between so called ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman ok and where does it turn into a power struggle?

For some, there is not ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman. “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a women.” (Catherine MacKinnon, author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies) Yet ironically, most porn stars, both male and female will tell you that their roles are powerful by creating a sexual desire. But feminist writers like Marilyn Frye, suggest a double bind in how society actual views women’s sexuality. “If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore…On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her to “relax”…threatened with labels like “frigid”.” (Frye, “Oppression” The Politics of Reality) While I do agree with Frye that this mentality does still exist in our society it is not a universal viewpoint by all men. For many modern men, pleasuring a woman is the goal in their sexual exploits. The power is no longer solely about his orgasism but about hers.

“…All heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” (MacKinnon, p.129) To label all pornography as vial and insulting to women would be a misnomer. To label all heterosexual intercourse as an act of violence IS vial and insulting. For example, I do not find anything insulting to women about Chippendales and I have been there a few times to aptly state from experience. The women there seem to feel very “strongly” about giving “meaningful consent.”

*If you are wondering how I knew about Rich’s work, this was actually part of the syllabus for an introductory course in Philosophy. Some introduction!

The Church and Homosexuality

Opening the newspaper has always been a depressing task for me each morning. This morning's (11/1/05) The News-Journal (a local Florida paper) has a small article on page 3, reading "Panel pulls lesbian minister's credentials."

Rev. Irene "Beth" Stroud was defrocked on Monday by the highest court within the United Methodist Church. The court found that she violated the denomination's ban on "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" clergy. Accordingly, this "lifestyle" is incompatible with Christian teachings.

I find it ironic that a religion based on a man who was excepting of a prostitute and was trying to teach people to love one another without prejudice, now condemns those who do not conform to their standards.

Hypocrisy runs rampant here and in most religions. People go to church on Sundays to pray for their sins, which are supposedly forgiven, and come Monday morning, they are beating their kids, cheating on their spouses and 'coveting thy neighbors' possessions (i.e., "Keeping up with the Jones'"). People shroud themselves in the protection a religion claims to offer but forget the basic fundamentals of being a good, moral person each day of their life.

Discriminating against anyone for their "lifestyle" choices cuts at the very heart of the basic teachings of Jesus and I would imagine he would be ashamed of the state of the world today. Here is a woman who has faith in a religion that does not have faith in her. Religion is supposed to bring people together, not shun them.

Note: Religion has many positive aspects but no one person is better than another. People should know that our differences are what define us.