gotta support them; opposition is the nature of reality

give sight to the blind

well.. i'm thinking of that time in europe when they suggested replacing almost half the ceos with women because they were women. but i think in the back of my head i logged every time i heard about something similar.

is that sort of ayn randian?

i just don't think enough people are willing to fight other people's battles. it's also really easy to be offended, and hard to fight against outrage without some sort of outrage yourself.

I read the Synopsis section.

"Chapter 4: Friedan discusses early American feminists and how they fought against the assumption that the proper role of a woman was to be solely a wife and mother. She notes that they secured important rights for women, including education, the right to pursue a career, and the right to vote.[9]"

matches my second wave estimation, fairly well

I like her critique of functionalism in Ch. 6.

Of course you will see continuing currents of second wave in third wave; just as you will see currents of first wave in second wave.

But I believe the focus of the second wave movement was driven by exploration, whereas the third wave was one of challenge, likely influenced/catalyzed by the combative reaction of the thus threatened male orthodoxy.

when there is a lot of traffic in the parking lot the answer is obvious

when there isn't the answer is not

Who is they?

the benjamins, bro

the particular organization? that i forget.

That's the author's description of "first wave" feminism, not Friedan's thesis for the book.

I think of it as Hobbesian, Daoist/Heraclitean really, but Ayn Rand does pick it up. She happens to take it in a ****ty direction that Hobbes, perhaps ironically, predicted.

people do fight others' battles though. with some great frequency, in fact.

So some unknown organization may or may not have suggested (sorry I won't take your word and google finds nothing) something ludicrous. You have no idea who it was, you have no idea how it was received or how widely supported the idea was by feminist groups. But you're certain that feminism in general wants to take things away from people as a general rule. That is pretty stupid.

the book sparked second wave feminism, according to wiki

chew up the past to **** out the future

on the internet?

there is definitely backlash to uhm 4th wave feminism, but this is mostly on the internet where no one can convince anyone of anything, and nothing really matters because 'support' is just one poll away somewhere.

on the Street, son

chutzpah

You're not making any sense. The part you quoted, which is not actually from the book but a paraphrase, is not the author's argument. The main argument of the book is that women are not and cannot be satisfied by societal conceptions of "womanity", to use your term. She argues that women have to forge a new identity and social norms and that women need the same kind of fulfillment in work and intellectual activity that men do.

You characterized second wave feminism as belief that women were different and should pursue their woman-ness, and third wave as the rejection of gender norms. Friedman is actively rejecting both the notion that women are fundamentally different as well as rejecting those norms of "womanity." Simone de Beauvoir's work (especially in the 70s) is exactly the same.

Your characterizations are closer to being backwards than correct. Many third wave feminists embraced the idea of re-appropriating traditional gender norms (for example of beauty or sensuality) but taking ownership of them, while many second-wave feminists utterly rejected them. Hence the bra-burning myth about 60s and 70s feminists, while pop starlets in the 90s might refer to themselves as feminists while producing music videos that your average 70s feminist found horrifying :P

WN, don't fall prey to the academic/Platonic necessity of clear lines!

Be a Survivor!

I think the actual largest substantive difference between "2nd wave" and "3rd wave" feminism is the growing importance of ideas which would eventually be called intersectionality. This was often expressed as criticisms of earlier feminism as being too concerned only with the problems of middle/upper-class white women.

If you will recall, the original argument I made was that the "wave" model is bull**** and that the labels don't refer to cleanly separable ideologies.

sorry i don't look this stuff up as a profession or even as a hobby. i could in time get a link, but it won't do you or me any good. i know that this was an idea at some point and i offered it as an example of why i believe what i do.

If I recall our earlier conversations correctly, I think even you believe women should be more prominent in business. This would be equivalent.

Lower physical standards for women in a civil service related jobs is another form of discrimination - and implicitly leads to less work for able-bodied men.

Whenever an article comes out in support of benefit of the doubt given to allegations of rape by women.

I cited your source, man.

I interpreted the wiki summary as her saying that woman's need for "womanity" was not satisfied by archetypal female roles.

Mix in a little Herbret Marcuse, and you got free love baby.

Not necessary gender norms, rejected by third wave. But hard-cast images, I believe. It was a demand for more individualized fluidity wrt womanhood, rather than a quest for The womanhood.



I think you are misunderstanding what I said, which is my fault.

If the second wave is about breaking the housewife mold, then the third wave would have no problem saying "I want to be a housewife, and that doesn't make me a 'bad woman'".

It actually sounds pleasant to be a full-time housedad (no kids atm), but freedom is nice, too.

that's a good word though. thank you.

touche

maybe i just haven't researched it enough but i haven't seen much of that sort of thing yet.

at least in context of feminism.

but i don't think i've often seen people protesting protesting either.

you can use it like cahones, I believe