Instagram

Translate

Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Sunday, September 12, 2010

here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK

 

| Nichi Hodgson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

From reclaiming the F word to objecting to objectification – there's a new feminist army determined to finally flatten the patriarchy. But here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK. Forget about castrating patriarchy – it's time to corral kyriarchy, the system identified by Harvard theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, which explains how ethnicity, class, economics and education, as well as gender, intersect to oppress us all, men as well as women.

So, kyriarchy: the substitution of one elitist, etymological hair-splitting term for another, I hear my newly estranged sisters cry – just what feminism needs. But this is a neologism with a difference. Where patriarchy – literally, rule of the father – explains only how traditional male authority dictates to, and subjugates women, kyriarchy (from the Greek: kyrios – lord/master; archion – dominion/rule) relates how each of us, whatever our gender, is a bundle of privileges we can all too readily abuse by invoking the "master power", whether that's as a black female barrister, a mixed-race trans male teacher, or a white immigrant male labourer. At the same time, the term's connotations of elite authority perfectly tap into the legacy of oppression that western feminists, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Germaine Greer, have dedicatedly derided.

Scoff at my linguistic parsing, but terminology matters. Just as contemporary feminism is so keen to detox the term "feminist", so "patriarchy" carries a whole truckload of outdated assumptions about male-perpetuated oppression that blinker us all. Take porn for example. Patriarchy just isn't useful when we want to talk about how its proliferation is negatively impacting on men and women alike. Kyriarchy, by contrast, accounts for the increasing numbers of men who are suffering from sexual performance anxiety or emotional disconnection with women, which can be related to x-rated overconsumption, and how female performers, who can make good money out of being the object of both male and female desire and envy, can argue they are somewhat empowered by doing so. This isn't to claim porn stars as emancipated feminist role models; it's just to recognise that sexual allure and money, rightly or wrongly, accord power that oppresses too.

Kyriarchy links the latest feminist wave to decades of activism, while better framing today's more subtle oppressions. It helps us to recognise the interconnection of education, class and eating disorders such as anorexia, and of domestic violence and poverty, rather than encouraging us to indiscriminately blame men. It contextualises the contempt of working-class male unionists towards Margaret Thatcher. It helps to explain how women themselves can in some cases morph into the supremacist bully, when paranoid mothers pass on anxieties about food and bodies to their daughters, ground down themselves by years of trying to live up to constructed notions of beauty.

Perhaps most importantly, kyriarchy exposes a sin within the women's movement itself: that of feminist-perpetuated oppression. (I can already hear feminists hissing at me as I type. But don't worry – I'll hiss at myself in the mirror later for perpetuating the stereotype of internecine cat-fighting.) When feminist commentators and charities working to "liberate" sex workers relate their tales for them, rather than letting them speak first-hand, that's kyriarchy. It's also kyriarchy when minority male feminists are forced to veto voting rights in equality action groups because they are male.

Kyriarchy has the potential to settle the age-old argument about "privileged" feminism once and for all. Perhaps that's why it's so frightening to those that balk at the term, and will dismiss this as yet another example of woman-eating-woman. It may feel counterintuitive, but recognising your own privilege doesn't make the struggle for gender equality any less credible: it makes it more so, by allowing feminists to see that advantages – such as being born to a semi-prosperous family or being well-educated – don't necessarily protect against, say, rape.

Whatever British feminism has achieved, it has never managed to fully convince men to get their march on. At least kyriarchy, with its emphasis on individual liberation and social equality, gives guys a chance to whinge about how they're oppressed too. And not just by the feminists.

 

 

here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK

 

| Nichi Hodgson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

From reclaiming the F word to objecting to objectification – there's a new feminist army determined to finally flatten the patriarchy. But here's the really radical news: patriarchy is dead. It's dead simplistic, dead inaccurate, and no longer a useful way of framing gender inequality in the UK. Forget about castrating patriarchy – it's time to corral kyriarchy, the system identified by Harvard theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, which explains how ethnicity, class, economics and education, as well as gender, intersect to oppress us all, men as well as women.

So, kyriarchy: the substitution of one elitist, etymological hair-splitting term for another, I hear my newly estranged sisters cry – just what feminism needs. But this is a neologism with a difference. Where patriarchy – literally, rule of the father – explains only how traditional male authority dictates to, and subjugates women, kyriarchy (from the Greek: kyrios – lord/master; archion – dominion/rule) relates how each of us, whatever our gender, is a bundle of privileges we can all too readily abuse by invoking the "master power", whether that's as a black female barrister, a mixed-race trans male teacher, or a white immigrant male labourer. At the same time, the term's connotations of elite authority perfectly tap into the legacy of oppression that western feminists, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Germaine Greer, have dedicatedly derided.

Scoff at my linguistic parsing, but terminology matters. Just as contemporary feminism is so keen to detox the term "feminist", so "patriarchy" carries a whole truckload of outdated assumptions about male-perpetuated oppression that blinker us all. Take porn for example. Patriarchy just isn't useful when we want to talk about how its proliferation is negatively impacting on men and women alike. Kyriarchy, by contrast, accounts for the increasing numbers of men who are suffering from sexual performance anxiety or emotional disconnection with women, which can be related to x-rated overconsumption, and how female performers, who can make good money out of being the object of both male and female desire and envy, can argue they are somewhat empowered by doing so. This isn't to claim porn stars as emancipated feminist role models; it's just to recognise that sexual allure and money, rightly or wrongly, accord power that oppresses too.

Kyriarchy links the latest feminist wave to decades of activism, while better framing today's more subtle oppressions. It helps us to recognise the interconnection of education, class and eating disorders such as anorexia, and of domestic violence and poverty, rather than encouraging us to indiscriminately blame men. It contextualises the contempt of working-class male unionists towards Margaret Thatcher. It helps to explain how women themselves can in some cases morph into the supremacist bully, when paranoid mothers pass on anxieties about food and bodies to their daughters, ground down themselves by years of trying to live up to constructed notions of beauty.

Perhaps most importantly, kyriarchy exposes a sin within the women's movement itself: that of feminist-perpetuated oppression. (I can already hear feminists hissing at me as I type. But don't worry – I'll hiss at myself in the mirror later for perpetuating the stereotype of internecine cat-fighting.) When feminist commentators and charities working to "liberate" sex workers relate their tales for them, rather than letting them speak first-hand, that's kyriarchy. It's also kyriarchy when minority male feminists are forced to veto voting rights in equality action groups because they are male.

Kyriarchy has the potential to settle the age-old argument about "privileged" feminism once and for all. Perhaps that's why it's so frightening to those that balk at the term, and will dismiss this as yet another example of woman-eating-woman. It may feel counterintuitive, but recognising your own privilege doesn't make the struggle for gender equality any less credible: it makes it more so, by allowing feminists to see that advantages – such as being born to a semi-prosperous family or being well-educated – don't necessarily protect against, say, rape.

Whatever British feminism has achieved, it has never managed to fully convince men to get their march on. At least kyriarchy, with its emphasis on individual liberation and social equality, gives guys a chance to whinge about how they're oppressed too. And not just by the feminists.

 

 

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Domestic Violence in Australia

Australia must tackle domestic violence to stop homelessness | National News | News.com.au
AUSTRALIA needs to address domestic violence to tackle the problem of homelessness among women, with 46,000 women already in need of shelter, a welfare group says.

Speaking out on International Women's Day, Homelessness Australia said women without a roof over their head should be a priority for government, particularly during tough economic times.

Women accounted for 46,000, or almost half of the country's homeless, the welfare group said.

It said women made up 40 per cent of those sleeping rough or in improvised shelters.

Among people living in boarding houses with no security of tenure, 28 per cent were women, and 48 per cent of what Homelessness Australia calls "couch surfers" - who depend on the charity of family and friends - were women.

Domestic violence was the biggest driver of homelessness, and women and children were worst affected by it, the group said.

"The largest single cause of homelessness in Australia is domestic and family violence, which overwhelmingly affects women and children," Homelessness Australia said in a statement.
Related Coverage

* Mothers afraid to seek welfareThe Australian, 22 Aug 2009
* More than $280m to tackle homelessnessNEWS.com.au, 2 Aug 2009
* WA homeless surge with rentsPerth Now, 9 Jul 2009
* Homelessness surges as rents soarsThe Australian, 9 Jul 2009
* Thousands of kids cast out on the streetsNEWS.com.au, 17 Jun 2009

"Sixty-six per cent of children who sought refuge in a homeless service last year were in the care of a woman made homeless by domestic violence."

Spokeswoman for the welfare group, Pauline Woodbridge, said the statistics showed the country had much to do to tackle homelessness and its causes.

"The statistics show that we have a long way to go in addressing women's homelessness, and its primary drivers, domestic and family violence," she said in a statement.

"The needs of indigenous women and women of non-English-speaking backgrounds demand particular attention in this area."

Executive officer of the welfare group Simon Smith said he hoped the federal government's national plan to tackle violence against women and children would overlap with its Homelessness White Paper.

"This is a priority, with economic downturn likely to swell the numbers of people who are homeless, and further stretch a homelessness sector already undergoing far-reaching reforms," Mr Smith said.


Friday, June 12, 2009

Double X

The end of one-size-fits-all feminism | Tamara Winfrey Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The end of one-size-fits-all feminism

As Slate's new site for women, Double X, points out, we need more than one point of view in feminism



I was prepared to hate Double X. See, I read about Slate's new online magazine for women before I read it. The site, spawn of the now defunct Slate blog XX Factor, has sparked a load of controversy in the feminist blogosphere. It's no wonder. Since it launched on Tuesday, Double X has posted a succession of articles aggressively critical of feminism. In fact, on the day of the site's premiere, writer Linda Hirshman penned a finger-wagging piece blasting the popular third-wave feminist blog, Jezebel, for encouraging young women in promiscuity and reckless boozing.

Feminism is about women's equality. Double X is a magazine for women. That the site would launch with a litany of "hackneyed anti-feminist pieces" does not compute. Here's a taste of what I found there:

But the feminism of the first and second wave has never been the feminism (or the womanism) of my mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. For example, take the question of whether to work. What some women struggled with as a point of politics, my foremothers had done simply as a matter of survival. Feminism framed the issues in a way that spoke to different women from all walks of life – then presented solutions that tended to favour women of a certain race and class.

Ironically, my lesbianism had something to do with this disenchantment with mainstream or 'institutional' feminism. There was always a difficulty, of course (even in the 70s one had puzzled over it): namely, what one's straight 'sisters' were going to do. How would they ever reconcile a putative belief in women's emancipation with what so often seemed an utterly depressing erotic and psychological fealty to men?

As a generation of young women is discovering, and as polemicists from Camille Paglia to Ariel Levy have pointed out, there's something missing in both points of view. Women can pretend they're female chauvinist pigs, but it's still women who are more sexually vulnerable to stronger men, due to the possibilities of physical abuse and pregnancy.

I was prepared to hate Double X, but I do not. There is truth in these critiques, if not necessarily for me, for some women. What many of Double X's contributors seem to be railing about is feminism with a capital "F" – the tired movement that tilts at old windmills and believes that the needs of a small group of women – generally white, urban, upper middle class, liberal, heterosexual, cisgendered, American women – are the needs of every woman. The real struggle for women's equality has always been about feminisms – many movements for many women of many races and many classes and many ages and many political persuasions in many countries and places.

One-size-fits-all feminism is a lie, because one-size-fits-all womanhood is a lie; so, too, the one-size-fits-all formula for women's media. Double X is markedly different from popular and high-traffic feminist blogs such as Jezebel and Feministing. That is ok. Those sites represent only one way to talk about and to women.

I do not agree with every point of view on Double X. Hirshman's screed, with its blaming of female victims of assault, was loathsome. But criticising Double X for not adequately representing women is as misguided as Hirshman accusing Jezebel of harming women. The modern women's movement is broad enough to encompass more than one point of view. One-size-fits-all feminism is dead. Long live feminism.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Calls for Palin to quit race

Calls for Palin to quit race | NEWS.com.au
September 30, 2008 06:50am

REPUBLICAN White House hopeful John McCain today defended his running mate Sarah Palin amid growing criticism of the vice-presidential nominee, telling supporters "she's going to be my partner in Washington".

Senator McCain devoted the beginning of his speech to praise Governor Palin, in the first rally since he announced the suspension of his campaign last week in response to the country's financial crisis.

"She's a bit of a maverick herself," Senator McCain told the rally in Columbus, Ohio. "She's going to be my partner in Washington. She's a leader and knows what it means to put country first."

Governor Palin has faced rising criticism in the press, including among conservative commentators, for avoiding the media over the last four weeks. The attacks have also expressed doubts about the Alaska governor's potential ability to serve as vice president.

Her Democratic counterpart, vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, has given over a hundred interviews with national and local media since being nominated in late August.

Governor Palin has given three interviews, including her most recent interview with CBS News last week that has prompted calls, even among some former supporters, for her to step down as the nominee.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote this week that Governor "Palin is clearly out of her league" and called for her to leave the race.

Speaking at the Columbus rally alongside Senator McCain, Governor Palin said: "Here in Ohio, the high price of gas is making a full tank seem like a luxury."

She told Ohio supporters the McCain-Palin ticket would mine coal resources in the region, in contrast to their Democratic opponents.

Today, Governor Palin will travel from Columbus to Sedona, Arizona - where Senator McCain owns property - to prepare for the vice-presidential debate on Friday.

Calls for Palin to quit race

Calls for Palin to quit race | NEWS.com.au
September 30, 2008 06:50am

REPUBLICAN White House hopeful John McCain today defended his running mate Sarah Palin amid growing criticism of the vice-presidential nominee, telling supporters "she's going to be my partner in Washington".

Senator McCain devoted the beginning of his speech to praise Governor Palin, in the first rally since he announced the suspension of his campaign last week in response to the country's financial crisis.

"She's a bit of a maverick herself," Senator McCain told the rally in Columbus, Ohio. "She's going to be my partner in Washington. She's a leader and knows what it means to put country first."

Governor Palin has faced rising criticism in the press, including among conservative commentators, for avoiding the media over the last four weeks. The attacks have also expressed doubts about the Alaska governor's potential ability to serve as vice president.

Her Democratic counterpart, vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, has given over a hundred interviews with national and local media since being nominated in late August.

Governor Palin has given three interviews, including her most recent interview with CBS News last week that has prompted calls, even among some former supporters, for her to step down as the nominee.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote this week that Governor "Palin is clearly out of her league" and called for her to leave the race.

Speaking at the Columbus rally alongside Senator McCain, Governor Palin said: "Here in Ohio, the high price of gas is making a full tank seem like a luxury."

She told Ohio supporters the McCain-Palin ticket would mine coal resources in the region, in contrast to their Democratic opponents.

Today, Governor Palin will travel from Columbus to Sedona, Arizona - where Senator McCain owns property - to prepare for the vice-presidential debate on Friday.

Stay-at-home versus working mums, feminism versus patriarchy, big business, big government, fertility and even super-sized mortgage repayments are all factors

Cradling cost of maternity leave | NEWS.com.au
Cradling cost of maternity leave

By Jessica Brown

September 30, 2008 10:50pm

THE battle over paid maternity leave is raging and this debate has it all.

Stay-at-home versus working mums, feminism versus patriarchy, big business, big government, fertility and even super-sized mortgage repayments are all factors.

But the real issue boils down to one simple question - who pays?

In yesterday recommending 18 weeks of parental leave for working mums, the Productivity Commission is trying to orchestrate a carefully balanced tightrope walk.

On the one hand, fiscal conservatives argue that the world is in financial meltdown - do we really want to be spending more of our taxpayers' (quickly dwindling supplies of) money?

On the other hand the unions, women's groups and assorted cheerleaders of big government spending are crying out for more taxpayer dollars.

How can we continue to undervalue the needs of our children, they argue.

While the Productivity Commission report resists some of the more outlandish claims to pay women - including those on well-above average incomes - their full salaries for six to 12 months from the public purse, it still calls for an extra $450 million per year from taxpayers.

Given that the Government signalled cutbacks on so-called "middle class welfare' in the May Budget by means testing the Baby Bonus and Family Tax Benefit B, this extra spending represents a contradiction in terms of both policy and principle.

The 18-week scheme will cost an extra $280 million when compared to the 14 weeks that the commission was expected to recommend.

Of the report's additional spending, $61 million will fund two weeks of paternity leave, reserved specifically for dads on a "use it or lose it" basis.

While it seems like a great idea to give mums extra support after the birth and to get dads more involved in child-rearing, the commission's report acknowledges that overseas versions of this policy haven't had the desired effect with the dads.

Is it really appropriate to use such a large sum of taxpayer dollars for what is essentially a feminist feel-good policy?

It's a lot of our money to be spending on something that we know from the research overseas doesn't work.

On the positive side, the commission argues that 18 weeks of paid leave will allow most parents to take the six to nine months off work which child health experts say is optimal.

This can be achieved through a combination of the paid leave component as well as parents using their own savings and other entitlements such as annual leave.

It's positive because it gives mums a chance to breastfeed their babies and recover from childbirth.

Parents will be able to provide one on one care at the most important time.

Importantly, this move also sets out a principle of shared responsibility.

Sure, it's helpful for the community to ease the burden on new parents through taxpayer subsidies but it also makes it clear to parents that the ultimately responsibility lies with them.

Paid parental leave is about supporting healthy babies and women's employment - not about subsidising mega-mortgage repayments or the infamous Baby Bonus plasma TV.

If new parents want to keep the same standard of living, they'll need to plan and save for it themselves.

It also helps the Government to resist the inevitable push which will come for longer periods of paid leave.

Australia already spends well over the OECD average on families, and any push for a bigger slice of government funding than that recommended by the Productivity Commission will be extremely hard to justify.

In terms of financial support from the Government, Australian parents aren't exactly doing it tough.

If longer periods of parental leave are demanded, a fair solution is to help parents fund it themselves.

It's called income smoothing: making sure that money you have had in the past, or will have in the future, is available when you really need it - such as when you're on parental leave.

For most Australians, the concept isn't new.

We already do it with HECS, mortgages, superannuation and insurance.

Why not for parental leave too?

Parental Leave Saver Accounts could allow parents to save for their parental leave, rolling unused savings into super or another asset.

The infrastructure for this system already exists, evident in First Home Saver Accounts and superannuation.

If families had not saved, or if their savings ran out, they could apply for an income-contingent loan.
Repayments would increase as family income increases, ensuring that loan repayments did not have a significant negative impact on household budgets.

The concept of both the community and individual parents meeting the cost of having a child is fair, but we need to keep in mind that Australian families already get it pretty good.

While some families will benefit from the new parental leave scheme, everyone will have to pay.

Jessica Brown is a policy analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies. Her paper Baby Steps Toward Self-Funded Parental Leave was released by CIS last week

Thursday, September 18, 2008

new feminism?

Virginity: The new feminism? - Broadsheet - Salon.com
Virginity: The new feminism?

Thank you, New York Times Magazine, for once again making my brain bleed during an otherwise serene Sunday brunch reading the newspaper. The offending article introduced me to a crew of abstinence advocates who have found that preaching to their sullied sisters about the preciousness of their long lost virginity doesn't effectively inspire cross-legged sexual gatekeeping. So, reading from their modesty magic book, college-age abstinence enthusiasts are attempting a religious sleight of hand and special incantation -- "abracadabra, make feminism appear!" If executed properly, their moral disapproval -- poof! -- disappears before our eyes, replaced by earnest concern about young women's empowerment.

The article focuses on two Ivy League student abstinence groups: Princeton's predominantly Catholic Anscombe Society and Harvard's True Love Revolution. Both groups have sought "credibility within the university at large" by avoiding religion-based arguments. As the Times tells it, these groups have worked backward, building an intellectual case to support their religious verdict. True Love Revolution in particular turned to "peer-reviewed journals and government sources for research that supported the abstinence view" and then published their findings on the group's Web site. To summarize: Pre-marital abstinence makes for a healthier and happier marriages, safe sex isn't actually safe, and early sexual activity leads to depression, cheating and poverty. Woo-hoo, way to go abstinence, right?

Except, uh, sexual health educators disagree with those assertions. "What is disturbing is that this club is using inaccurate information and distorted data to sell that message," says Martha Kempner, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council. "They're completely baseless claims."

But maybe they're hoping we'll forgive a few baseless, religiously-biased claims -- after all, abstinence advocates like Janie Fredell, co-president of True Love Revolution, say they ultimately have a secular, feminist focus! As the Times notes, Fredell read Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" alongside John Stuart Mill's "Subjection of Women." She knows all about the wage gap, forced sterilization and female genital mutilation! And, as she told the Times, she cares "deeply for women's rights."

I don't actually doubt that she does and there's at least one feminist thread in her thinking: Female and male sinners are equally in need of rescue. But while she rejects the role of "the meek little virgin female," she argues for women to return to their post as strict sexual gatekeepers. The only difference being that Fredell believes the latter is an empowering act of rebellion. As the Times puts it, Fredell "asserts control by choosing not to have sex -- by telling men, no, absolutely not."

Shocking as this news may be to some, feminism has nothing to do with broadly asserting control against men; they aren't the enemy! Refusing sex only means something for a woman's personal power if she doesn't want to have sex. But Fredell doesn't care about women making their own decisions about whether or not to have sex before marriage, she simply wants them to make the same decision she has made. She defines female empowerment along her own very personal and religious terms. Fredell can call herself a feminist all she wants, but the only woman she's truly defending is herself.
― Tracy Clark-Flory