Week 4

Iron Jawed Angels

I don't know why I expected the suffrage movement to have been easier. I don't know why I expected the suffrage movement to be more widely discussed. Of course entrenched systems of privilege fight for their continuation, and of course the difficult struggle for women's right to vote would be largely ignored by that same system that attempted to originally deny it.
The film Iron Jawed Angels has attained a privileged spot on my list of favorite movies. I was impressed by the writing, acting, directing, music, and everything else that goes into a movie that I don't know how to appreciate. I don't know if I was surprised by the struggle of the suffragists or disgusted. I found something so familiar on the faces of those rushing to inflict violence against the women in the parade or picketing the White House or in the jailhouse. Patriarchy and privilege are so entrenched; any move to subvert the system is met with both violence and disgust. And that scares me.
I thought the movie was laced with strikingly humanizing depictions of all of the main characters. I guess that's how you make a movie interesting, but I still really appreciate understanding these powerful women that did so much to change the world as complete human beings, even if the personal stuff was largely fictionalized. I was so impressed by the strength of every woman. The determination to move forward, and to do the right thing, in the face of unbelievable adversity inspired me. In the face of the status-quo favoring NWSA, Alice Paul took as drastic action as necessary to ensure a constitutional amendment. At a time when the President of the United States viewed the enfranchisement of half of his nation's population as a "special interest", state-by-state focus simply wasn't going to work. By being vigilante in her advocacy and drastic in her methods, including maintaining a hunger strike while imprisoned, Alice Paul was able to achieve victory when the United States was at a time of war, and couldn't handle the negative publicity.

Manifesta
Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards wrote Manifesta. It begins with a dinner party, which I find inherently exclusionary. I’ve recently begun an article about taking a break from Feminism for Queer theory. The introductory definition of feminism articulated it as a fundamental distinction between M and F with M oppressing F. I much prefer to make the M: masculine and the F feminine. Then I can neatly fit into the F and fight against oppression. When groups make the F: female, my voice is excluded along with, I assume, trans voices.
This becomes relevant when the Norman Women’s Collective only invites ‘men’ to the last meeting of the month, and only after an email informing the collective of their presence beforehand. There are a whole slew of issues I have with this.
However, Baumgardner and Richards posit the consciousness-raising that occurs when women speak about male supremacy is a “radical…process…[what] spur[s] women to change the world and transform the personal into the political” (14). I have a hard time remaining angry and excluded, I don’t fully understand the limits of my male privilege, so I think often I should just let spaces exist without me.
What follows is an articulation of a desire for a third wave manifesta and what Baumgardner and Richards would put on the docket. Abortions and STDs and male accountability. I did like the discussion of abortion. The “anti-choice fringe is more activist, organized, and better funded” (32). Note the billboard sized display on South Oval the week of the election. Furthermore, “the most anti-choice states spend the least amount of money on children’s services,” while “states that were pro-choice were the most pro-children” (32). Your politics are just patriarchy. You can try to wrap them in religion, but at the core you hate women and children and that’s not very Christian.
DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE! I can’t comment. I guess I can, I did some highlighting.
WORK AND FAMILY, WITH COMMENTS
“But I get so tired of asking” (39). This reminds me of my apartment. I do the cleaning. And I hint at the desire for help, but Seth and Kevin refuse to clean anything if I don’t specifically request it. Even if I do, Seth refuses to take out the garbage. Elizabeth and I are the only ones that will do cleaning. It bothers me. Reminds me of my parents. Marriage probably sucks.
Marriage excludes “same-sex couples from its benefits, responsibilities, and pleasures” (40). But even an inclusive marriage would be exclusive. The benefits and responsibilities shouldn’t be confined to romantic-love inclined couples. I have a hard time getting on board.
Motherhood: is the “opposite of liberation”? “You are bound to your body, to your baby, and to societal expectations in which motherhood means always having to say you are sorry…unrewarded by a system that gives no economic value to rearing children and other tasks of human maintenance” (44). Gay couples create “revolutionary” families (46)! Again consciousness raising is presented as the solution! Creating activists that fight for politics that supports women and children.
My last line highlighted:
“What weaves a feminist movement together is consciousness of inequities and a commitment to changing them” (48).

Alright! Let’s start our third wave!

Week 3

What is Feminism?

I remember it being the first day that my Grandma told me she wrote poetry. She may have mentioned it before, actually, but the first time I really appreciated that this amazingly charming woman wrote poetry was the same day she got in an argument with my mother. It seems that somehow the status of women was brought up for discussion. My Mother was disgruntled that her Mother would dare compare the forced servitude of women to slavery. I found myself siding with my Grandmother, and I felt like my Mom was really ignoring a sobering truth. Suffice it to say; when I told my Mother about my proposed interview, she thought that I would have a lot more in common with my Grandma on the issue than I would have with her.

When I phoned her, and explained to her my questions, she requested another day to sort her thoughts out. She briefly mentioned two things that stood out to her: her college choices and reading Jane Austen. When I called her back, she didn’t mention any of the social issues cited as most concerning by Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner’s survey of campus women (59). Her experience of gender didn’t include reproductive rights, self-identity, work-and-family balance, or, fortunately, violence against women. Two specific things highlighted her experience with gender.

When she went to college in 1953, she was only offered three choices: secretarial training, teaching, and nursing. She says she could have been brave and branched out, but it assuredly wasn’t encouraged. Much like my Mother’s history with feminism, my Grandmother was initially critical of feminism. Raised in a very gender-traditional Mormon household, they thought everything was okay with the world, that’s just the way things were. My Mother even described being disgusted by bra burners.

However, my Grandma was inspired by the likes of Gloria Steinam. Women pushing for ‘equal pay and things’. She eventually thought, “Why not?” and she gradually “kind of embraced it.” She loved Gloria Steinam so much; she shared with me a quote: “Two rules to live by: stay away from doctors, they make you sick. And always rinse the shampoo out of your hair.” While she assured me she’d never consulted a dictionary on the matter, she thought of feminism as the movement for equality. She even seemed relieved when I told her I had the same personal definition.

When I asked her for an experience that made her conscious of her gender, she brought up Jane Austen. Jane Austen, it seems, provided her with the first evidence that there wasn’t equality between the sexes. She recalls that she was furious that women couldn’t hold property, “And how badly women were treated. They had to call their husbands Mr. Lamb or Mr. Warren. That just upset me, but I love her books. So, that upset me.” She then told me a story that reminded me of Susan Faludi’s book Backlash. “My mother who is 93 went to a clinic to get a something for her blood, and when she came back she said:

“I can’t believe it, every doctor in that clinic was a woman. Every nurse”

I said, “Hooray”

“No, that’s not good, men are smarter. It’s just men who should be doctors.”

She was born in 1915, she still thinks men are smarter than women.”

I don’t think it’s the backlash Faludi was talking about, but it does demonstrate that equality isn’t wanted by all.

She then went on to discuss Sarah Palin, whom she views as a slap in the face after the promise of Hillary, and the discouraging notion that women can’t hold high office because they need to tend their kids. She didn’t articulate it into the desire that work-and-family balance become a priority of public policy, and she conceded that my Mother was probably right that children uniquely need their mothers around. I think that places my Grandmother at the beginning of the Second Wave: pushing for gender equality in the workplace. She concluded by telling me how glad she was that I was doing ‘this’. She wasn’t very clear on what ‘this’ was, but I appreciated her comment.

Week 2

History and Politics

            It began with the First Wave and the right to vote.  Women were “jailed, fined, and endured hunger strikes” (Rowe-Finkbeiner 22) to achieve the ballot.  Susan B. Anthon cast an illegal vote in 1872 and was promptly jailed and fined.  Alice Paul founded the National Women’s Party and picketed the White House until she was arrested and went on a hunger strike. 

            Next came the Second Wave with its noteworthy activists including Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan.  The Second Wave fought through legislative process to “increas[e] gender equality in the workplace, access reproductive health care and sexuality information, [pass] civil-rights legislation that made discrimination on the basis of sex or race illegal…, secure equal pay for equal work, elect more women to public office, legal[ize] abortions, and [achieve] a ban on discrimination in schools and lending, among other things” (26). 

Now, however, many young women refuse to term themselves feminists and too few of them vote.  This apathy comes from people thinking equality has been achieved or that their votes don’t matter (186).  Turns out Bush is actively working against abortions and family planning.

Fortunately Obama’s pretty great.  He brings in the young voters and he doesn’t hate women!  And then there’s Michelle.  She’s just great.

 

Interview

It seems as if I have a very civically minded group of friends. Of the thirteen people I interviewed, all of them claimed an intention of voting in this upcoming national election. Except for the Clintern. Ariana was an intern for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Iowa. She seems to be the only person who became informed about local politics, and voted because of it. I attribute this to her increased political interaction with the Hillary campaign. Ameena voted in local Utah elections, probably because Referendum 1 was such a big issue, and she wanted to vote for Hillary in the primary.

Emily Dixon managed to vote in local elections over the summer because her beloved High School teacher insisted that she should. Otherwise, nobody seemed to know about the local process. People mentioned a lack of understanding of the process, or a lack of understanding of the issues. While I heard a lot of people claim to care deeply about their civic duty to vote, few cared enough to actually research their local elections and the issues that would directly affect them. Most people seem to think the National election is the only one that matters, but nobody seemed apathetic because of it. I’ve always thought that the Electoral College excluded my view. Utah is the most staunchly Republican state in the Nation, and my democratic vote for president is essentially a waste. Coming to Oklahoma doesn’t seem to increase my chances of helping to elect a Democratic President. I don’t know why I always took for granted my ability to sway local elections. I want to blame it on Utah. But my respondents weren’t all from Utah, and they weren’t all Democrats. They all just seemed uninterested in local elections, but dutifully bound to national elections (albeit probably they were just saying that for posterities sake).

I didn’t notice a difference among genders; I’d say it’s just a testament to apathetic youth.