Thursday, January 31, 2013

Mothers and Daughters Continued, The Feminism vs Social Mobility Model


A few more words re: Mothers and black daughters
 

Failure to settle down
One other reason for problematic relationships with black mothers and daughters can be down to mothers not settling down/moving into the next phase of life with regards finding a mate or partner.

Put it like this, If a forty plus year old woman is still pursuing her relationship goals at the same time as is her twenty year old daughter, there is a high possibility that mother and daughter could clash in a more competitive way because of this 'shared' ambition. As women (black women in particular) have most of their children outside wedlock and remain in the market for a relationship into their forties and fifties when their daughters are also looking to date and settle down, it can and does cause resentment in some mothers who have to confront the fact that that the youth of their daughters gives them an advantage in the dating arena as opposed to how hard it becomes for them as more mature women. If a mother is dating she also is aware that a young nubile woman in the vicinity of her relationship could lead down the all too familiar path of infidelity/sexual abuse between her boyfriend and her daughter which leads to internal anxities. You can imagine the complications that can arise from all these tensions and hidden anxieties.

Indeed restructuring of the traditional family set up does have many repercussions some of which we are only just discovering as the reality plays out in front of our eyes!

When a mother's mind has been colonised by race-hierarchy notions

In my last post, I didn't want to go into detail about how racism in white mothers (whether vestiges of it or the full blown variety) can damage mixed race daughters, because that would require a whole book in itself. BWE writers have also written about this issue in the past, especially about how the self esteem of daughters with father's who idolize white women can take a trouncing. A commenter on my last blog post however drew attention to a slightly different angle on the subject of colorism and race hierarchy with mothers and daughters.

She wrote
I was going on a date with this guy I met online and had figured I'd show my mother a video of him doing a sport that he does well in, when she asked me if I was sure that he wouldn't want to date a popular young white girl instead of me since he seemed popular himself.

I told her to not reflect her insecurities on me; which also brought me to sometimes question who needs enemies when I could just have a mother like mine. She is much lighter than me with long hair which has caused a lot of black men to fetishize her in the past. And although I'm her daughter I have always made better choices than her even when I made mistakes. I know that apart of her can't understand why my dark nappy headed self is living a better life than her and how on earth do I find white men that like to date me. She will sometimes convince herself it's because of my "smaller lips" or some other preconceived "white feature" when I in reality have typical African features.

Clearly this shows the kind of battle that many black girls who have mothers who have essentially internalized their oppression or who accept and revel or trade in the idolization of their 'whitish' features, by the black social structure and black men and thus become threatened when there is an 'order change.' From a young age, these black girls have to understand and recognize the disease that is in the mind of their mothers/fathers or the parental structure around them. They are also going to have to find a way to cultivate a real solid self esteem which they themselves are convinced about (not just lip service about loving their lips and hips and all that). This is going to be very hard project because you don’t have the family structure on which to build and reinforce this self esteem, however it does help if the daughter understands and feels that her mother is 'off' when she comes up with her colorist ideas and notions. That feeling will guard this young women until she can get a better understanding of how colorism has infected and damaged her mothers thinking as well as formulate her own solution for cultivating and encouraging her own healthy self esteem.



Congrats to the newly engaged couple Mellody and George!



Until I am convinced otherwise I belive at this stage in our society, the social mobility model has better gains than the modern feminist one

Last week in a guardian newspaper article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/joanna-lumley-foolish-rape-drunken-feet a staff writer took umbrage at suggestions from a well known British Actress that young ladies should behave with decorum and particularly with their safety in mind when out on the town. That bit of advice was just a small part of an interview the actress granted a newspaper but this writer took the small bit and built a whole case against the actress, accusing her of blaming women for rape etc

Now look at the suggestion made by the actress:

"Don't look like trash, don't get drunk, don't be sick down your front, don't break your heels and stagger about in the wrong clothes at midnight," she says. "Don't be sick in the gutter … in a silly dress with no money to get a taxi home, because somebody will take advantage of you, either they'll rape you, or they'll knock you on the head or they'll rob you."

Now I believe to fellow BWE (and any one with two brain cells in their heads) the suggestions above are not offensive in fact they are just common sense, however it appears that there is a branch of modern feminism (a strong and very vocal one at that) that disallows this kind of common sense talking to women (and it has even begun to affect many men who now feel they have to prove their 'progressive credentials' by touting louder than others, the various trendy feminist tropes and notions!). The net effect is that our daughters are now existing in vacuums where every bit of functional and common sense advice is gradually being sucked out because women and girls...what’s the current intellectual parlance they use...ah yes 'should not have their behaviour 'policed'', or we should not 'victim blame'. They have to be left alone to be and do whatever they want (at the same time government and tax payers must gladly foot the bill to repair them after any and every misadventure).

A commenter to the article had this to say:

Tanya would not be at all concerned about her own daughter's safety in this scenario, and would privilege her daughter's freedom to make bad choices above advising her against such stupidity, then she would be a pretty crap parent. Hence I presume she has no daughters.

If you ask me, modern feminism has begun to founder on the principles of 'women should not be judged', don’t shame or criticise a woman which is deemed 'policing' women, which ends up simply being 'do not say anything about how a woman chooses to be'. This is a strange place for feminism to be because everyone, every structure, every society needs a bit of criticism to make for more effectiveness (and I think living effectively should be a key goal for women). For instance even though it could be said that men retain the social privilege to 'whore around' they are mocked and criticized for chasing woman after woman, after woman and never settling down. Men are criticised for consuming pornography, testosterone fuelled antics including war, aggression, exploitation of the earth’s resources etc etc. How is it then, that women's behaviour and activities are disallowed any scrutiny? Why should women not be pulled up on their actions and activities especially when we can see that certain actions are to their detriment. Are we going to continue with this binary framing of women are victims (so must never be criticised or held responsible for anything) and men are the victimizers (so we can aim as many and as much criticism their way).

As far as I am concerned there should be space given in society for criticising personal choices especially if and when these impact on others. A woman who has children she cannot take care of or brings children into an insecure domestic situation needs to be asked to take a look at the likely outcomes of her choices.

No one is born with all the knowledge they will need to successfully live out the whole of their lives and that is why there is need for criticism which to be simply put, means showing how certain choices and options can be detrimental or ineffective protocols for running ones life.

I believe the feminist model comes into its own when addressing the most basic and fundamental rights of women including combating misogyny, the right of women to control reproduction, equal payment for equal jobs. Feminism is good in doing the ground work for women's progress, but beyond the fight for the basic rights and equality for women, I am now scratching my head as to what use it is beyond that, especially when I am constantly coming across overreactions like the above article. This is why I am in firm support for feminism in developing areas of the world where women don’t even own their own bodies. I think there is a threshold beyond which feminism in the west becomes all about picking fights and offence vigilance.

Social Mobility Model contd
 
Next blog post available from 16th Feb

My e-books are now available on Amazon. Please click on the corresponding links below for more info.

First Steps to Personal Empowerment
Amazon







Do Black Women in Afros
Date White Guys?
Amazon







Supposing I wanted to
Date a White Guy...?
Buy Here or Buy at Amazon


 

10 comments:

  1. As a fellow UK-er LOL I took a quick peek at this week's Look magazine which is a weekly fashion magazine and they had a couple of pages about what Joanna Lumley said and the stir it caused. Actually the first time I heard about what Joanna Lumley said was through this very post!

    But they spoke to a woman who was 'pro' what Joanna Lumley said about protecting yourself as a woman from being a rapist's prey after a night in a bar and they spoke to another woman who was against what she said who stated that she was 'tired of all the victim blaming'.

    The one who understood where Joanna was coming from put it very plainly that basically 'it would nice to live in a world where there are no dodgy blokes around the corner so that we can happily walk around however we want to but sadly that isn't the way it is'.

    I hate 'victim blaming' and 'slut shaming' entirely but I can see where Joanna was coming from because hey things are what they are and I just don't want to be attacked ever.

    People are being too hard on Joanna Lumley, for one thing she comes from another generation and she comes across as a genuine and decent person on TV, honestly to me she does, so I can't for some reason see Joanna's comments as a nasty, low and outdated way of saying 'She was asking for it' or picture her looking down her nose at 'certain kinds of women' who go out for drinks.

    Even though 'a gig is just a gig' for actors and musicians, for someone who played Patsy in AbFab to be judging drunk women with little clothing on? LOL That would be quite a stretch! So I can't picture Joanna Lumley intending to merely 'slut shame' girls and women of the next generation in my mind.

    Many years ago on either Montel Williams or another talk show, a couple of police detectives were on TV talking about how rapists target women in order to inform women watching the show about how to become more secure in their whereabouts and they mentioned the problem of 'easily accessible' clothes like elasticated sweatpants. The detectives said that a rapist may target a woman wearing sweatpants because you can get them down easily. Sadly what Joanna was saying is just one of those things sometimes even though she was talking about barely there skirst and tops, but it all still bears thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm waiting for the Ab Fab reunion with baited breath! There are several women who have offered pearls of wisdom in cautioning against excess. And correct me if I'm using the term incorrectly, but Brit-speak includes the term "ladette" to encompass those women who act as vulgar as men aka "Girls Gone Wild". This push of vulgarity and raunch is now the comedy staple in the US with the success of movies like Bridesmaids. I rented it a few months after it was released and was rather grossed out and disgusted by the way the women behaved in the film. I was so relieved there were no black women acting a fool in it. The fake empowerment of the bastardized version of 3rd wave feminism is very similar to watered-down BWE-lite being promoted by some as authentic. Feminism is an archetype still offer plenty, but the execution and implementation has become more crass as women have forgotten how to be ladies and fail to see the benefits bestowed upon modesty. The same way some BW are forever tied to lamenting about or complaining about/debating about the poor behavior of black males,it's a rabbit hole they'll never leave. Tracy McMillan wrote a great article in Huffington Post that I had featured some time again before she published her book titled, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html which most women writers have responded negatively to, but her assessments are spot on if caustic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am in the UK right now and this is the first I'm hearing of this story. I suspect that some of the blow-back she is getting is due to her being 'posh', and criticising a behaviour that is far more common amongst the lower classes of female British society. It is not uncommon to be in a taxi on Oxford street on a Friday night (or very early Saturday morning) and see these trash loitering on the street, throwing up, bending down to urinate on the pavement. I haven't gone out to those places in a while for that very reason. Funnily enough, I can tell you that I have NEVER seen this type of behaviour around West End clubs or clubs in Chelsea/Knightsbridge, and we know the types that patronise which club. Even when some kinda raunchy stuff goes on INSIDE the club, no one acts a fool when you are outside, and it's not just because some paparazzi might be there.

    It's annoying when folks try to make out that it is all or even most young women who behave this way. This is entirely chav behaviour. There was even some controversy a few months ago because a picture of some woman ended up on the front pages. She was late 20's (or early 30's), and a school teacher. She had left a club, very intoxicated, and pulled her underwear down around her ankles as a 'joke'. She was wearing a very short dress, and proceeded to bend down as if to urinate on the pavement. Unfortunately for her, there was a 'journalist' there that took pictures. She complained and wanted to sue because newspapers printing the picture had caused her deep embarrassment, as her father had seen the pictures and the school where she taught wanted to fire her. There were folks defending her, screaming about freedom and privacy, all the while ignoring that all this had taken place in public.

    When males engage in such behaviour, we label them, rightfully, in a negative way. So how come some people think that women behaving this way is all fine and dandy?

    There are many things feminism is good for. Women aiming for legal, economic and political parity is great. All this other stuff is overreach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Evia here.

    young ladies should behave with decorum and particularly with their safety in mind when out on the town. . . . but this writer took the small bit and built a whole case against the actress, accusing her of blaming women for rape

    I think women AND men should behave with decorum in public.

    Some of this boils down to common sense, and the recognition by women that we all live in patriarchal world. This means that the brutish behavior of many men against women will always be excused by most men and women.

    I would describe myself as a feminist, meaning I'm certainly much more a feminist than not. I'm ever thankful to the feminist movement. Pre-feminism was a really wicked witch for any group of women. So young women had better be careful about trying to do away with feminism. 'Be careful what you ask for because you may get it.' Remember that if men had treated women like full-fledged human beings, there would never have been a feminist movement in the first place. Men, in general, had their feet on the necks of all women.

    So, I would say that some of this is a matter of using common sense and nuance, on a case by case basis. In this particular case, I would totally support the feminists because this is a clear double standard. For ex. if any young man is sick from excess drinking and is sleeping it off in a public place, I've never heard where anyone would even come close to excusing a gang of homosexual men or even one gay man for raping him. The overwhelming most of people would be on the drunk man's side and say the gay man/men should be prosecuted to the max and in some places, these gay men would be killed. But if a young woman is in that exact same condition and is raped, most people, including most women, would blame her. This is what the feminists are railing against. Society gives men TACIT permission to make these attacks on women, whereas it would never give homosexual men the permission to do that to young men. Trust me. Some homosexual men would LOVE that kind of tacit permission! LOL!

    So, I think that in general, women had better support feminism--even in its most outrageous forms. Life is much,much less oppressive for ALL women 24-7--due to feminism.

    @ Faith,

    I read that McMillian article. It was funny! IMO, some of it was very true, but there were lots of holes in it and much of it wouldn't apply to the AA women 70% unpartnered rate. Lots of other factors are involved.

    For ex., I could never advise an AA woman to zero in on a man's "character" primarily and minimize his financial capability. White women may very well be able to endorse character as primary criteria because they know that a white man is going to have a certain amount of money, or assets, or is able in the overwhelming number of cases to make money if he has any drive at all.

    Bw are still largely looking at bm as mates. Of course, some bm do have character, but character is not nearly enough in a long term relationship. So a man's "character" in this context would need to be defined. No one can live off character, because it's usually defined as a man being a "nice" guy who's tryna do the right thing. LOL!

    Too many bw hitch up with bm who, at the outset, may appear to or indeed have enough character, defined in this manner--but not much else. The bw, thus, becomes the main meal ticket for the family and as we know from the black divorce stats, this is a key factor that sets in motion a bunch of anti-relationship dynamics that will destroy a long term relationship.

    So, as a feminist and a realist in relationship dynamics, I believe my male partner has to bring at least an equal amount or preferably more (not necessarily cash) to the table if he wants to be regarded the way many men want.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Evia Hi! I would think character would also include an assessment on a man's ability to be a good provider. Provide, protect, problem-solve and produce at a level that meets and exceeds the needs of that particular woman with all the attendant pros and cons.

    Plus, we already know various WW can get away with the sluttiest behavior and still be a SAHM. BW have to be more discerning.

    You're right about the need for caution in extreme reactions to feminist Agendas vs. propaganda. And, McMillan's focus is primarily applied to the average WW moreso than BW. Everything must be reviewed.

    "Feminism" as a social and political movement offers many benefits, but as I said the execution and implementation of what some women do vs. how they really live should give other women pause.

    The competitive aspect where a lot of protected WW who benefit from patriarchy want to dominate men the way they've been thereby biting the hands that shields them is a big part of that, but I don't see enough analysis of this and think it's intentionally ignored.

    Because most BW as a group are not protected in that capacity, we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater but who and what they support should be considered. This is another example of BW not really utilizing their power for their interests. Nor should they blindly support other women's agendas unless they have alliances. Or anyone else's for that matter, but this failure to at least consider their positioning is why BW remain in their current status.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part 1 of my comment:

    I think women AND men should behave with decorum in public.

    Some of this boils down to common sense, and the recognition by women that we all live in patriarchal world. This means that the brutish behavior of many men against women will always be excused by most men and women.


    I see this more from the point of view of who is actually more likely to be negatively affected by it all. There are many instances in which ‘society’ judges women more harshly than men. In this case, however, a drunken woman loitering around on her own at nighttime is at greater risk than a man doing the same is. I don’t consider people who were assaulted while semi-drunk to be responsible (or even partially responsible) for the crime, after all, no one ever applies that to any other crime besides rape, the one crime in which women are the vast majority of victims. I do still think that one should take precautions where and when they can, to reduce the risk of such things happening.


    I would describe myself as a feminist, meaning I'm certainly much more a feminist than not. I'm ever thankful to the feminist movement. Pre-feminism was a really wicked witch for any group of women. So young women had better be careful about trying to do away with feminism. 'Be careful what you ask for because you may get it.' Remember that if men had treated women like full-fledged human beings, there would never have been a feminist movement in the first place. Men, in general, had their feet on the necks of all women.
    So, I think that in general, women had better support feminism--even in its most outrageous forms. Life is much,much less oppressive for ALL women 24-7--due to feminism.


    Younger women that dismiss feminism do so because they have only ever known the benefits. Therefore, they are unable to relate to not having certain freedoms. And unlike with, say, the Civil Rights movement, the one thing that is discussed the most is women getting the right to vote, so these women don’t realise that there were so many other things that feminism gave women beside the vote. There are some issues that I have with the ‘white’ feminist movement, mainly the fact that a lot of the ‘advice’ they gave to women, they didn’t follow themselves, particularly in regard to marriage. So there were many women who heard them go on about how marriage is just another form of oppression, how all ‘real’ feminists must be lesbians (granted, it was the more extreme voices) as they are the only ones that really love women, etc. The upper middle class feminists themselves then went on to marry well-to-do men. Even though many of them had careers of their own, they were not interested in being the breadwinners, contrary to what they had claimed. They changed the sexual dynamics (in many cases, for the worse) but don’t have to suffer it but the next generation did. We see women walking around today thinking that promiscuity is part of female empowerment. There is nothing wrong with having an ideology or belief system, but one has to temper it with common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 2:

    For ex. if any young man is sick from excess drinking and is sleeping it off in a public place, I've never heard where anyone would even come close to excusing a gang of homosexual men or even one gay man for raping him. The overwhelming most of people would be on the drunk man's side and say the gay man/men should be prosecuted to the max and in some places, these gay men would be killed. But if a young woman is in that exact same condition and is raped, most people, including most women, would blame her. This is what the feminists are railing against. Society gives men TACIT permission to make these attacks on women, whereas it would never give homosexual men the permission to do that to young men. Trust me. Some homosexual men would LOVE that kind of tacit permission! LOL!

    I’m with you on this completely. There was a time when if anything was said about low conviction rates for sexual assaults, folks (almost always males), would chime in about false accusations and how it is so damaging to the men, or when we talk about domestic violence, someone would feel the need to mention that there are women who assault their male partners. I always wonder why anytime the discussion is about, say, a drug dealer/gangbanger, or burglar, or murderer getting off, or the victims refusing to press charges out of fear, no one ever feels the need to mention the people who were falsely accused of those crimes. Just today, I followed a link that somehow ended up on a Slate article (written by a female writer that I must admit, I greatly despise). It was about how the statistics are conflated in a way that makes them seem even better than they actually are, and for the most part, I actually agreed with her. Lo and behold, I glanced at the comments and in addition to the usual response (as I mentioned above), there were a handful of males who turned the conversation into one of men being the real victims, especially as no one ever talks about rape in prisons. I suppose society has degenerated to a point where every woman that is attacked is somehow responsible for it, but men who chose to break the law, knowing full well that if caught, incarceration (along with all it brings) could well be a consequence, are not in any way responsible for their own assault.




    For ex., I could never advise an AA woman to zero in on a man's "character" primarily and minimize his financial capability. White women may very well be able to endorse character as primary criteria because they know that a white man is going to have a certain amount of money, or assets, or is able in the overwhelming number of cases to make money if he has any drive at all.

    That’s the thing though. Most women (white, Asian, black African, Hispanic, etc), don’t do this. It is AA women, for the most part that do. Yet surprisingly, they are the ones being labelled as “gold diggers” by AA men. Besides, isn’t ambition, being hardworking, being someone that doesn’t give up too easily, etc, part of someone’ ‘character’? These are all traits that significantly increase the likelihood of a man becoming successful. I am curious to know how women, particularly AA women define ‘character’, because if it is just, ‘aww, he is a ‘nice’ guy’, I’m not sure it could involve anything beyond, “he doesn’t beat me”, “he doesn’t call me names”, “he’s friendly”, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 3:

    With the point you made in your post, as I said in my original comment, with feminism, women fought for legal, political and economic justice, and as far as I’m concerned, it was well deserved. We should have the same rights under the law, have as much right to political representation (or to hold political office), and to be able to succeed/advance economically without being hindered due to our gender. The ‘extras’ that some feminist try to throw in, however, just aren’t my cup of tea. There have so many false ‘battle of the sexes’ ‘wars’ fought over, almost nothing. I don’t like how they use abortion as a wedge issue during elections, even though I may (or may not) share their political philosophy. As far as I’m concerned, as long as a candidate isn’t trying to de-legalise abortion or eliminate Roe v. Wade (or thinks that women’s anatomy can somehow differentiate with the whole impregnation/fertilisation process to know whether or not it should ‘get pregnant’), I don’t particularly care what their personal opinion is on it. Similarly, it is not compulsory to work. I don’t like the condescending way many feminists label women who choose to stay home, even though that isn’t something I myself would enjoy doing. If a woman decides to be a housewife/stay at home parent/whatever they call it nowadays, she has that right. As long as her and her husband agree on it (or not), and it is a self-sufficient household, it is no other persons business. However, if she/they/her children are in anyway dependent on the public purse (welfare, food stamps, etc), it becomes my business because I’m paying for it. Moreover, in such an instance, she should not get a choice as to whether or not she works! If she is a single mother (and the father is not in the picture), then it’s a no brainer, she should get a job. If they are a married couple, and decide that the wife should stay home, the husband had better work his behind off to provide for his family; I see no reason why they should be able to resort to the public purse.

    Additionally, on one hand, I understand that many women felt repressed pre-feminism, but I think things went a bit too much to the other end, with the hook-up culture now being normalised. The worst thing is that it negatively affects women even worse than it does men, yet many (including many men who enjoy getting sex for free) say it is female empowerment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Evia here - Part 1

    Hi Faith!

    You said:

    I would think character would also include an assessment on a man's ability to be a good provider. Provide, protect, problem-solve and produce at a level that meets and exceeds the needs of that particular woman with all the attendant pros and cons.

    I agree that in general, your definition of character would apply to white men and men in certain other societies, but when it comes to certain groups of POC, some terms have a degree of meaning shift. That phenomenon in itself could fill volumes.

    And you allude to that when you say:

    Plus, we already know various WW can get away with the sluttiest behavior and still be a SAHM. BW have to be more discerning.

    A slutty bw is definitely viewed differently by Black men than a slutty ww, as in the cases of Kim K and Amber Rose. We can surmise from that that there is an ample proportion of those couples among the bm-ww couples we see in everyday life. However, based on my observations, wm are in general much less judgmental and more forgiving of a woman's sexual's behavior or past--if the man likes that woman, and that includes women of ALL hues. Also, from my observations, white people (aside from the hypocritical Right-wingers)in general are not nearly as preachy and judgmental about sex as AAs. I've noted that for years. We see this sometimes now when we see very influential wm who marry ww strippers and other women with shady sexual pasts. And it's not often that I encounter wm online or offline calling women sluts and hos, aside from Rush Limbaugh types.

    A lot could be written about bw's sexual behavior these days, but IMO, it's often not "what" bw do these days; it's HOW they do it.

    Having multiple sexual partners is not a new thing for ANY group of American women. IMO, the main problem with bw's sexual escapades is that bw are not nearly subtle enough. This is why I detest all the blabbing and in-your-face behavior that too many bw PUBLICLY do. Bw need to find more private places to talk about their sexual exploits (if they must talk) AND their pain and not put all of this on Front Street. For ex., bw did not invent sex or what's known as "slutty" behavior, but too many AAs in general seem to love to talk about all the sex they're having or can have. I don't believe that bw are having any more or any sooner sex or more raunchy sex than any other group of women; bw just seem to need to broadcast it as well as exhibit all of their tattoos, "love"-bites" and body parts in various ways--maybe in order to get attention? I think many bw hunger for attention from males because of lack of fathers or the right kind of fathers, and as we know, they're certainly not getting the right kind of attention from males around them due to widespread dysfunction in black social circles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Evia here - Part 2

    Faith said:

    You're right about the need for caution in extreme reactions to feminist Agendas vs. propaganda.


    I've always taken what I needed from feminism and modified it when needed to benefit my life, and I trashed the rest. I've never needed for ww feminists to tell me what to keep and what to trash. To me, this was a matter of common sense. For ex., I got married because I figured that marriage to a CQLL man would benefit MY life and definitely my children. Likewise, I was a SAHM the first 6 years of my oldest son's life and partially a SAHM for my youngest son's first years. I then went back to work FT in a job with flexible hours and enough off-time so that I could be there with my children during their early formative years. I liked working outside the home, but I still wanted the option of spending time raising my children. So I had to be sure to marry the type of CQLL man who would support this.


    "Feminism" as a social and political movement offers many benefits, but as I said the execution and implementation of what some women do vs. how they really live should give other women pause.

    Can't be sure to exactly what all you're referring, but if you're talking about women's sexual behavior in these "hook-ups," I think that many of these women (of whichever group) are trading sex for attention, validation as in "ain't I a desirable woman" TOO, and love. This is why I've seen that until more AA women, in particular, get used to the fact that they have abundant romantic and/or marriage options in the global village, many of them will continue to scratch and peck in the dirt for attention, validation, and love.


    The competitive aspect where a lot of protected WW who benefit from patriarchy want to dominate men the way they've been thereby biting the hands that shields them is a big part of that, but I don't see enough analysis of this and think it's intentionally ignored.

    Well, I don't think this is discussed because it's not seen as a priority by influence-wielding ww and wm to discuss it widely. At the end of the day, ww definitely know who is feeding and protecting them. I could be wrong, but my interpretation of what ww were mostly saying through feminism was that they would be willing to have a less food and a little less protection to be able to breathe more easily in other areas of life.

    Also, if it's important enough to the white "race" for them to survive and continue to thrive as a "race," ww and wm will adjust to the changes brought on by feminism. Among better-educated, middle and upper middle class ones of them, we see them doing this now as they take tiny steps and balance themselves after each step, in that regard. Many wm, for ex., are great supporters of feminism because it takes some of the weight off them in lots of ways, not just in terms of being the sole breadwinners or making all of the decisions. Feminism has enabled some men to stretch out and be more "human." They don't need to play the role of traditional "man" 24-7.

    ReplyDelete