Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Well, but let's just say she DID have a long term relationship with him. Let's just say it's true. So what? I mean, seriously, so what?!)[/b]

---

Have been thinking about your saying "so what", and cueball's assertations that "it sounds like research to me". BS it sounds like research, and as to "so what", as far as I am concerned her relationship with such a dispicable man taints her words, actions and her motives and it suggests that her commitment and approach to feminism or even human rights is highly suspect.

quote:

---

[b]Do we believe in women's autonomy or not? [/b]

---

Truly, what has believing in a woman's autonomy got to with her long term affair with Kissinger? Nothing! I would feel the same about anyone who had a relationship with that man, male or female.

quote:

---

[b]Do we believe that when a woman is sleeping with someone, she automatically takes on his worldview and his politics?[/b]

---

Her actions in having a relationship with him, atually do validate his actions, it does not matter if she takes on his view or not. Close constant proximity over extended periods of time more than suggest, acceptance, if not approval of Kissingers actions. From this perspective I simply cannot understand how a feminist, who professes to believe in human rights and the fight for equality could actually enter into a relationship, sexual or not, with someone who is a mass murderer and has done the things he has done. It would be equivalent to looking to Eva Braun as being one's mentor.

quote:

---

[b]Do we assume that people only get together with mirrors of themselves?[/b]

---

That is a strawman Michelle, there is a world of difference in getting together with someone who differs from oneself, and having a lengthy decades long relationship with a murdering war criminal who supports the erosion of human rights.

quote:

---

[b]mportantly, do we believe that when women get together with men who are very different from them, that they become mirrors of those men?[/b]

---

Again not pertinent, her relationship with him validates his actions.

quote:

---

[b]sexist assumption. [/b]

---

Strawman, no one stated that you brought it up and kicked it down.

quote:

---

[b] Most of us have at least one friend or family member that we love but who is not on the same page as us politically.[/b]

---

Uh, no, when it comes to racist acts and oppression and mass murdering of others, I personally draw the line at associating with family friends or other.

How would you feel if she had a relationship with Saddam or Pinochet?

quote:

---

[b] I know I certainly have dated (and even lived with!) people with some extremely repugnant views - classist, racist, anti-semitic, sexist views.[/b]

---

And how did those relationships work out for you?

No one made an issue of who you fucked but you.

quote:

---

[b]You know, the more I think about this, the more it annoys me. I was annoyed before but didn't see it this clearly until Cueball pointed out exactly what the problem is with this sort of attack. (And I'm usually on top of this sort of thing, too!)[/b]

---

Yes, I kinda feel the same way but from an opposite view. And what exactly did cueball point out? That no one lightens Kissinger's actions because he was with Steinem? That was an empty commentary, as he does not know that, or a least did not prove that, and I would say in fact that he is wrong.

Personally, I would ask; do you feel you are defending Steinem's actions, because you are on record as supporting her?

And NO it is NOT gossip. It is credibility of words matching actions in order to see if one should put any store into positions taken. Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?

IMV anyone can fuck who they want. But that does not mean I can't judge who they fuck as being representative of what they represent, or are stating they represent.Putting credence towards someone who chooses to fuck a war criminal that has caused untold, and told horrors, against peoples around the world, for decades, all the while saying they are a feminist and progressive, is impossible IMV. It at best means her positions are of the shallowist sort.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?[/b]

---

Gee, I wondered how long it would take for someone to pull out Eva Braun. Now we nazi-bait classic feminists - tres progressive methinks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]Gee, I wondered how long it would take for someone to pull out Eva Braun. Now we nazi-bait classic feminists - tres progressive methinks.[/b]

---

gee, I wondered how long it would take for someone to make such a comment regarding my Eva Braun comment. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

It's not Nazi baiting at all, which is why I thought long and hard about what parallel I would use. Have you read up on poor Eva? Furthermore, IMV just because some think she is a "classic feminist" does mean she gets a pass, or her less than feminist actions get excused.

Apparently, historians say she was not a Nazi, and she was "just" Hitler's lover. Her diaries seem to bear that out also. Though she knew of his actions, she was against them, but she loved "her man" and stayed with him anyway.

Moreover, she, if one thinks about it, rejected Nazi philosophy regarding females. One could liken her to a type of "feminist" as she did not stop wearing make up, she smoked and she drank. All of which were taboo for women in Nazi Germany. And that is why in the end I decided to choose her to get my point across.

And IMV putting "Glo's" actions in an actual contextual value perspective, is more honest and progressive than those who would either shut their mouths, or cast aspertions upon others for daring to speak truths.

Being under the auspices of standing up for her, and her actions with Kissinger, because she is prominent supposed "feminist" and an alleged public voice of women is wrong and perhaps does feminism a dis-service IMV.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Yes, I kinda feel the same way but from an opposite view. And what exactly did cueball point out? That no one lightens Kissinger's actions because he was with Steinem? That was an empty commentary, as he does not know that, or a least did not prove that, and I would say in fact that he is wrong.

Personally, I would ask; do you feel you are defending Steinem's actions, because you are on record as supporting her?

And NO it is NOT gossip. It is credibility of words matching actions in order to see if one should put any store into positions taken. Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?

IMV anyone can fuck who they want. But that does not mean I can't judge who they fuck as being representative of what they represent, or are stating they represent.Putting credence towards someone who chooses to fuck a war criminal that has caused untold, and told horrors, against peoples around the world, for decades, all the while saying they are a feminist and progressive, is impossible IMV. It at best means her positions are of the shallowist sort.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ][/b]

---

My hypothesizing about what may or may not have have led to Steinem, possibly or possibly not, having some kind of fling with Kissenger is entirely conjecture. My point more than anything is that people do "dance with the devil," and just because Mick Jagger screwed Maggie Trudeau does not mean that I don't think "Sympathy for the Devil," is not a good song.

That said there is a difference between someone having a long term relationship with direputable people, as that clearly affirms more consideration and thought on the part of the actors, so, I think Hitler's and Eva Braun's relationship is far mor indicative of Eva Brauns true nature, because it transpired over a period of time, than any possible liason between Kissinger and Steinem. Braun, it seems, at the very least a bit of an opportunist in love with the limelight, and power.

As well, it should be considered that in the mid-sixties there was a sea change within the American intelligencia in the way people understood the operations of the US government, and even now, the idea that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, is not a comon conception of who he is. It is hardly damning, even in the event that Steinem did have an affair with him, since she, like most Americans were largely immunized against the idea that US government did anything worse that get bad resultd from good intentions.

So, at worst I think we can say Steinem might have shared the general naivete of the American intelligencia.

And, on top of all that, this whole thing is based entirely on celebrity gossip.

No. Because "class analysis" is a specifc term from the lexicon of left wing terms, and has a specific meaning related only to those schools of thought. Funnily enough, within a broad sweep, it encompasses all of the root ideas which allow you to say what you just said, and for that to be understood among people who share (or at least understand) the mode of thought.

The term is not simply a composite of the meanings of the two words which make it up. It is right in there with "class consiousness," and "class struggle," they are all three linked concept bound in the framework of Marxist thought.

This is generally understood and accepted, no matter how much you want to argue with me because you don't like me. People like Milton Friedman, and even Gloria Steinem don't talk about having a "class analysis," because they don't have one, and don't want one, and don't think you should have one either.

You seem to be arguing that they express ideologies that latently or overtly express class interests, and come from a world view embedded in class, and their relationship to a class, and their personal interests in that class, and that their analysis reflect class relations conciously or unconsiously but this is not the same as having a "class analysis," which is actually a specific conceptual tool used to analyze "class interests," "class relations" and so on and so forth.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tommy_Paine wrote:

The straw person Stienem introduces is the false idea she asserts at the begining.

And as I pointed out repeatedly, the idea wasn't introduced by her out of the blue - it was raised by right-wing critics of Sen. Boxer, as reported in the article that I linked to.

Quote:

The attack on Harris' appearance is exactly the kind of dumbo right wing approach to argument that an Ann Coulter would be proud of, and something women in leadership have to contend with constantly, which is beyond unfair, and a major issue for anyone who is interested in equality.

Steinem's piece was not about attacking Harris for her appearance; that was just a gratuitous insult she threw in. A more balanced appreciation of what Steinem [would everyone please note the spelling ???] was saying would not focus exclusively on that remark.

Quote:

Her views-- when I have come across them-- seem to lack any kind of class analysis.

It's just as well, since she is clearly a bourgeois feminist and always has been. Frankly, I'm not interested in her class analysis.

Quote:

Maybe she has addressed this, but to me, the above article seems rather esoteric compared to the difficulties most women face today.

Only esoteric to someone who ignores the context in which it was written (a very public controversy), as I tried to explain above. *sigh*