Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Freethinking Woman : A Historical Perspective. Pt. 1 of 3

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." --Rebecca West

Trying to define the term Feminism is challenging because it means many different things to many different people.

My definition is quite simple.

Feminism is the movement for equal rights for women whatever that might entail during any given period in history.

Given my definition I don't accept the concept of "protofeminism" nor do I believe that there were only three "waves" of feminism.

That said, for now and in the interests of clarity, I will make my comments within the context of accepted historical standards.

Historically speaking there have been three "waves" of feminism defined.

The first wave began in the 18th century along with the development of the FreeThought movement and Rationalism and was supported by many FreeThinkers from it's inception.

It's neither an accident nor a coincidence that the suffragette leaders were FreeThinkers for the most part.

The reason for this is that it was the FreeThinkers who were questioning the standards and the existing beliefs, holding them up to the light of reason, discarding that which didn't meet rational standards and upholding that which did.

That's not to say that Christian women didn't play a role in fighting for the right to vote. They did. It was, in fact, the one unifying issue between Christian feminists and FreeThinking feminists.

However, there was a divergence of interest on other issues where the Christian feminists focused on Temperance (prohibition of alcohol) whereas the FreeThinking feminists focused on Abolition (banning slavery) amongst other issues.

While the stated focus of this First Wave was womens suffrage, the right to vote, it's real focus was much more than that.

It was about the right of women to recognized as persons under the law.

After all, that's precisely why women didn't have suffrage. We were legally considered chattel, the property of the men who were in charge of us whether they were our fathers, husbands, uncles, brothers, caretakers, etc.

Note that according to Amendment XIV of the US Constitution, citizens were persons and on those grounds granted the privileges defined by the Constitution including the right to vote. Since women were not given the right to vote they were not considered persons under the law or citizens as defined by the XIVth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 16, 1866, by the Thirty-ninth Congress. It was ratified July 9, 1868.)
Section 1

[Citizenship defined; privileges of citizens.]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

While the women of the day who posed arguments to support their right to equality did so within the context of the times and in relation to the existing social theories which kept them enslaved, the real issue was glaringly obvious and while unstated, was reflected clearly in Marion Kirkland Reid's, A Plea For Women (1843), where she elucidated three issues which stood in the way of women's rights. These three issues formed the foundation for both the First and Second Wave Feminist movements.

They were:
1. Lack of civil rights
2. Unjust laws against women
3. Inability to obtain an education

If women were considered human beings, people under the law, the above would have resulted in violations of the existing Constitutions in various western countries.

In addition, it was implicit in the existing social theories of the day which Reid also addressed:

1. women and domesticity
2. women and Christianity.

Reid spoke to these in the context of "women's appropriate role in society".

Source: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2003/reid.html

So Reid's major contribution was to objectify through these issues the real problem which was that women were not considered to be persons under the law, by the society of the day.

Reid's document, combined with the shunning of women from around the world, who attended the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840 led to the Seneca Falls Convention in the US, on women's rights. The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments was authored here by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and became the foundation for American feminism.

Excerpt:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

***

"Closing Remarks
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

Once suffrage, the right to vote, was won, a major hurdle was overcome. This right, through the XIXth Amendment of the US Constitution legally established that women were persons under the law.

Amendment XIX

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 4, 1919, by the Sixty-sixth Congress. It was ratified Aug. 18, 1920.)

[The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied because of sex.]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

[Congress given power to enforce this article.]

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

This allowed women to move things to the next level, to establish legal and social equality in other areas.

Women now began the process of establishing an identity through media and culture,  legal rights, employment inclusion and equity, reproductive rights, exploration of gender issues and female sexuality, fighting for social reform on many fronts including Family and Property Law.

None of these issues was won easily and at times resulted in the imprisonment of advocates.

In addition, many rights were removed after WWII since women were no longer needed in the work force.

This environment led to the Second Wave of Feminism.

Simone de Beauvoir, mother of modern feminism, existentialist philosopher, feminist, polyamorist, bisexual, lover of and inspiration to Jean Paul Sartre wrote the ground-breaking book, The Second Sex in 1949 which laid the foundation for this Second Wave of Feminism.

Beauvoir's critique of First Wave Feminism corrected errors in and advanced the philosophical approaches originally adopted by First Wave Feminism.

She established the concept that women's goal wasn't to be like men but to be equal to men, that equality was established by the freedom to choose, and was responsible for coining the term, Women's Liberation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

Saturday, April 24, 2010

BoobQuake Promises a Shake-Up on April 26!

The BoobQuake event which started as a joke by skeptic atheist feminist blogger, Blah Hag, has taken hold with nearly 130,000 Facebook participants and thousands of tweets on Twitter, as of this moment. (Yes Skeptic Feminists *do* have a sense of humor!).

"In the name of science, I offer my boobs" says she :-) who is also a Biology/Evolution major.

Blag Hag has proposed that women around the world dress immodestly (show cleavage, etc.) on Monday April 26, 2010 to determine if Iranian cleric Sedighi's claims that feminine immodesty causes earthquakes (yes he actually said that!).

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader."

One tweet on Twitter commented that this was a win-win event for women because if there wasn't an earthquake we have dispelled a very silly superstition and if there was an earthquake we will have established boobs as Lethal Weapons of the WMD (weapons of mass distraction) variety :-).

It works for me either way.

The media has become quite entranced with the event being reported everywhere from the US, Canada, Australia, India, et al.

Vancouver has decided to have a rally on April 26 called BoobQuake in front of the Art Gallery. Immodestly (but legally) dressed women will parade their immodesty from 4PM to 8PM.

The organizer of the Vancouver rally will have a computer with a geiger counter to test for any shaking in the area.

Blag Hag was quoted by CNN as saying:

“It’s not supposed to be serious activism that is going to revolutionize women’s rights, but just a bit of fun juvenile humor,” she wrote. “I’m a firm believer that when someone says something so stupid and hateful, serious discourse isn't going to accomplish anything - sometimes light-hearted mockery is worthwhile.”

And I couldn't agree more.

Participate and Enjoy!



Saturday, February 23, 2008

Women And The Bible. Part I

Is the Bible sexist?



Ask that question to a liberal Christian and the answer will be a morally outraged, "No, absolutely not. How can you possibly say that? The Bible tells men to love their wives, not be harsh to them, and love them as Christ loved the Church."



In addition to the derision and scorn, Biblical passages will be quoted ad nauseum, in a futile effort to prove this, conveniently overlooking certain critical factors such as context and intent. This, while emphasizing the necessity of looking at context and intent in order to justify redefining terms. This is particularly true if you happen to be having this debate with a pastor or a relatively well indoctrinated member of the "flock".



The two main passages offered as "proof" of the Bible's and therefore God's love for women are Colossians 3:19 and Ephesians 5:25-33.



Let's look at what these passages say and the context in which they were written. For convenience I'm looking at the NIV version of the Bible which is recognized as the most common version. There is no substantial difference in these particular passages between NIV (New International Version) and KJV (King James Version).



Colossians 3:15-25.



This passage states as follows:



"15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."


Source: BibleGateway : Colossians 3:15-25



One of the liberal Christian arguments boils down to the following. The Bible says that we are members of one body, that of Christ. True, the Bible does say this. Then the leap in logic follows where the Christian will state that this means that all are equal in the eyes of the Lord.



Note that nowhere in the above passage does the Bible even imply that there is equality between all members of the "body". In fact, different direction is given to each of the components of the "body" which in fact indicates that each one has a different role and the roles are not equal, particularly given the culture at the time. Remember we're talking 2000 years ago here.



A variation of this Christian argument states that we shouldn't take the Bible literally, that is we should look at the intent and not the specific context. However, looking at the statements from either the point of view of context or intent or both actually changes nothing here.



Men must love their wives, and the wives are to submit to their husbands. Sounds like the type of relationship a man would have with his dog. Man loves dog, dog submits.



The controversy that rages here is around the word Submit and what it means. The dictionary definition and current social understanding of the word is:



submit Definition



sub•mit (səb mit′)
transitive verb -•mit′•ted, -•mit′•ting
1. to present or refer to others for decision, consideration, etc.
2. to yield to the action, control, power, etc. of another or others; also, to subject or allow to be subjected to treatment, analysis, etc. of some sort: often used reflexively
3. to offer as an opinion; suggest; propose
Etymology: ME submitten <>
intransitive verb
1.
1. to yield to the power, control, etc. of another or others; give in
2. to allow oneself to be subjected (to treatment, analysis, etc.)
2. to defer to another's judgment or decision
3. to be submissive, obedient, humble, etc.


Source: Your Dictionary : Submit



The definition provided by one liberal Christian Pastor was:

"Submission is a willful yielding to the will of one who has proven he always acts in your self-interest." --Michael_E of AvC.



Source: AvC Thread : Uselessness of Emotional, Heated Posts



He claimed that this was the meaning of the word in the context of the Bible as a whole.



Now frankly, one can jump through hoops to justify whatever one wants to justify if your Dogma is at stake. One can pull in all kinds of disparate Biblical passages to make a claim which is no more or less valid than the more honest (albeit more sexist) claims of the Christian fundamentalists, which are simply that women are inferior and are being punished by God because of the Original Sin.



The fact is that the Pastor's definition doesn't match the existing definition of submission and so can't be interpreted in this way as intent. It also doesn't match any ancient definition of the word as you can see by the etymology part of the definition above. The Pastor is a liberal Christian, seemingly a nice guy, but his cognitive dissonance here is effectively making him a liar.



The reality is that 2000 years ago women were considered chattel, marriages were arranged and her value to a man was not much higher than any other property he owned. There is no requirement for the women to love their husbands only to submit because the woman's feelings didn't matter. She was expected to accept and do as she was told. Men are told to love their wives and not be harsh. The Bible is essentially saying that men should treat their property well.



Treating women nicely has little to do with accepting women as competent equal partners in a relationship no matter how you look at it. So removing the context and looking at intent changes nothing here.



Ephesians 5:25-33.

to be continued in Women And The Bible, Part 2.




Written by Trance Gemini of AvC

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Submission by Theo Van Gogh

Submission produced and directed by Theo Van Gogh, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Submission, is a very powerful 11 minute short film which condemns the hypocrisy of religion, particularly Islam, from the point of view of Muslim women.

Theo Van Gogh, a film producer, nephew of the famous Dutch painter, Vincent Van Gogh, and an atheist, paid with his life to produce this short film and Hirsi Ali was forced into hiding after receiving death threats.

He was brutally murdered (stabbed and shot) by an Islamic extremist, jihadist, Mohammed Bouyeri in 2004.

Source: Theo Van Gogh Wiki article.

It's a truly sad state of affairs when the expression of controversial opinions in a free and democratic society results in death threats and murder.

And it's the reason, that I don't identify myself as the author of this post.