“As Chafetz (1988) points out, one of the most fundamental areas of difference among feminists lies with the questions of what cause gender inequality and what mechanisms operate to maintain unequal sex/gender systems. Jaggar and Rothenberg (1984) have identified at least four feminist approaches to these questions, although Chafetz (1988) argues that there are even more.
“Liberal Feminism:equates gender equality with equality of opportunity. Liberal feminists maintain that gender oppression is caused by unequal access to civil rights and the resources and rewards of social institutions, such as education and work. Interestingly, however, they offer no analysis of why such opportunities became blocked in the first place (Jaggar and Rothenberg 1984). Their concern is providing all individuals with a chance to succeed regardless of their sex (or other social characteristics). If each person is given the same chance to try to accomplish his or her objectives, then failure will be caused by personal inadequacy, not socially imposed ones.
“Marxist Feminists: For example, see gender inequality as rooted in social class inequality. it is the capitalist system of production that generates social class inequality as well as women’s economic dependence on men. From this perspective, gender inequality can only be eliminated by replacing capitalism with socialism; then, social classes will be abolished and women along with men will be fully integrated in to the economy. Once women are equal economic contributors, equality in other areas will follow, although some resocialization may be necessary to change entrenched sexist attitudes (Jaggar and Rothenberg 1984). Marxist feminism, however, has been criticized for downplaying the importance of sex and gender as well as race in the analysis of capitalism.
“Socialist Feminists: Take the issue with the notion of the primacy of social class inequality and point out that some forms of gender oppression cut across class boundaries. Socialist feminists maintain that capitalism and patriarchy are interdependent systems; consequently, both must be overthrown if gender inequality is to be eliminated (Hartmann 1984). ‘The essence of socialist feminism is seen in two major points. First, the mode and relations of production and reproduction are interconnected, indeed, inseparable. And second, gender, class, and race intersect in ways that result in important differences in life experiences in both the productive and reproductive realms of persons’ (Danner 1984:4).
“Radical Feminism: Sees women’s oppression as primary relative to all other oppressions and maintains that gender inequality is rooted in the nature of traditional heterosexual interpersonal relationships as well as in the structure of social institutions. Sexism, then, must be addressed not only in the public sphere, but also in the private sphere; both are seen as arenas of political struggle (Jaggar and Rothenberg 1984)…Radical feminism, though, has been criticized for ignoring the significant differences in power and privilege among various groups of women, such as those between white women and women of color (Danner 1989; King 1988).”
(Renzetti, Claire M., and Daniel J. Curran. Women, Men, and Society. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. Print)
“But be strong women, if you wana run for president, like do it, follow your dreams. Um, I probably just won’t be voting for you.”
I had to do it. I had to post it because it was JUST THAT STUPID. Her opening, “people already think I’m the biggest idiot in the world” would be correct because apparently she is a complete airhead. I mean, just listen to not only what she’s saying but how she’s saying it.
Along with her stating multiple times that she “doesn’t have the facts straight.” Why are you talking if you aren’t even slightly educated on a subject?
Her response to when women were not allowed to vote, “well, it’s a good thing because back then women weren’t like, educated…they were just stupid.”
Well they were smart enough to get your dumbass the right to vote.
I don’t recommend this book to anyone unless you are already against pornography and want more reasons to solidify your opinion because trust me, this book is chock full of shit that leans on the side of disturbing.
“Naked Ambition” contains excerpts of women in the pornography industry explaining how they got in, why they like it, what it’s like, why they support it, etc.
Not only does it lack depth, but the language used is off the fucking hook. Most of it is extremely erotic, overly descriptive in places where description isn’t necessary, direct, and straight raunchy.
Yet, that’s not what got me.
What really got me, was the way this book described sexualized violence against women unapologetically. Some writers attempted to make it seem normal and acceptable, and proudly stated off scenes that they participated in or directed which portrayed the woman being humiliated and degraded.
“I shot a scene where Michele Raven was slapped around, choked out and dunked in a toilet bowl. I had a girl riding a horse with a dildo inside her. I had another locked in a dog cage.”
I actually feel for the girl who was in a scene like this because I can’t imagine what kind of psychological damage that would do to a person.
I get the whole, “what turns on one person may be degrading to another”
—but
Come on. The very nature of locking a woman into an animal’s cage is degrading, is humiliating, is dehumanizing without question. A woman’s head being pushed into a toilet bowl is not sexual, is not erotic, and the fact that it’s been attempted to be made sexual is sick, violent, and misogynistic.
The girls who are in these scenes go home and may have families and they eat dinner, they have favorite foods, they may have boyfriends, they have friends, and these women have bad days just like you and I. These are real people. These are women with emotions, too.
I feel this is important to emphasize because pornographic scenes like the one described above are completely and utterly dehumanizing.
I’m not saying that these women were forced into these scenes, but just because they appeared in scenes like this does not mean that it was enjoyable or any less humiliating.
It was so difficult to read, not only because of the content but because of the lack of quality in the writing, that I didn’t even make it through the entire book.
Ironically, the book was published to encourage our support of pornography.
Can’t say that was very effective. I’d even go as far to say that some women who previously did support pornography, might even question their own opinions after reading some shit like this.
“TO STOP VICTIM BLAMING AND TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF CONSENT”
SUPPORT “NO MEANS NO” ON FACEBOOK
I did not create this facebook page—but I wish I did.
This not only adds to age-old stigma that all feminists are complete, delusion, man-haters but it’s also a gender stereotype.
Let’s talk about American culture. What exactly is the American male culture?
Is it the 3.4 million Playboys sold a month and 1.4 million issues of Hustler?
Could American male culture be represented as the rates of domestic violence and abuse?
Could it be slut-shaming and victim blaming?
Could it be the acceptance and normalization of violence against women? Often sexualized in advertisements.
Could it be the general insensitivity towards rape which comes not just from men, but also from women?
Like the Exeter University scandal, Forrest Griffin’s little “joke” about rape that he tweeted. (Which really does piss me off. Still.)
I’m not so sure what there is to “celebrate” about the male American culture. Maybe the fact that we can vote now, maybe the fact that we no longer see
“help wanted—male” or “help wanted—female”
The irony of Gaga’s statement is that it would be impossible for her to be where she is if it wasn’t for feminism.
“Don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby” has got to be one of the most naive, narrow-minded, judgemental, ignorant arguments against pro-choice supporters.
There is such a thing as
—rape, incest, sexual assault, date rape, etc.
Haven’t these people turned on the morning news?!
Like, where the fuck are they living? Last I checked sex did not equate
to consent.
Am I wrong or am I right? Because shit,
if I’m wrong somebody correct my shit because last I heard, 1 in 5 women are hurt by rape and one-quarter of women in the state of Oregon alone have been raped.
I mean, read your fucking newspapers, people.
Wake up and smell the shit!
This world is not a field of roses and fucking ponies that we get to prance around on.
Newsflash, check the statistics on how often consent does not happen but the act of sex is pursued anyways because statistics prove that the odds are against those girls who have used the line, “don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby” and they are against every other woman on the face of this earth.
Give me a fucking break. Seriously.
I’m not trying to preach my own opinions but hey, if there’s one issue I believe is pretty black and white when it comes to feminism is that
—you can not be pro-life and claim to be a feminist.
The reasoning behind that?
The core, the very root of feminism is the belief in women’s rights.
No matter if you believe that abortion is morally wrong, you should still uphold the choice if you claim to be a feminist because this supports the woman’s right to her own body.
Now, you could use this very same argument with advocating the legalization of prostitution
But you’ve got a lot of factors that you could argue against this, such as
—the rate of violence (both sexual and physical) towards prostitutes,
—rate of substance abuse within prostitution,
—whether or not buying/selling of bodies is modern-day human slavery,
—the statistics of women who are forced into prostitution vs by choice,
I’m not stating my own views here, I’m simply trying to show that if there is one issue that has to do with
a right to your own body
which has virtually no arguments against it
besides the issue of whether or not it is morally wrong is abortion.
Should your own personal viewpoints on what’s moral and what isn’t, be the sole reason against the choice of abortion for all women?
There are plenty of pro-life advocates that give a little leeway, including some viewpoints from the Vatican through out Catholic history.
Some women may believe that the act of abortion is wrong but it should be allowed in certain circumstances. Such as,
—if it’s during a very early stage in pregnancy
—if it’s due to rape/incest
—if it’s due to rape and the rapist is convicted
—if it would threaten the women’s life not to abort
Why should the choice only be there in certain situations? Does it change the fact that it’s still abortion? Not really. I call bullshit.
I call bullshit on any girl who bases her stance against abortion—an issue dealing with a woman’s right to her own body—with nothing more than their own moral views and then turns around and calls herself a feminist.
Yeah right.
