Article: I am a Mother of Two and Cannot Support Feminism

[roddma]

I agree there are some extremes in feminism, but she seems to lump them all together. The last part really caught my attention. A woman is likewise entitled to a husband who is not an ultra Patriarchal overbearing controlling jerk.

thoughtcatalog.com/tara-kennedy-kline/2014/11/i-am-a-mother-of-two-children-and-i-cannot-and-will-not-support-feminism/

[2xx1xy1JD]

Does this woman have a problem with basic reading comprehension?

Nobody is saying that she shouldn't raise her sons to be gentlemen.

They ARE saying that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value.

They are also saying that women shouldn't live in fear of sexual assault, and that street harassment makes public spaces hostile and threatening for women. No, street harassment doesn't consist of making eye contact and saying "hello" to everyone. For starters, it usually involves eyes elsewhere, and saying more than hello. It's not a bad idea, though, to teach your son that he should know a woman for more than 1 second before coming on to her.

If my son had a girlfriend, wife or daughter, then yes, I would expect him to tell them that they are beautiful. If a female friend is trying on outfits and asks for his opinion, "beautiful" is an appropriate response. Otherwise, it's a weird thing to say to someone you don't know. Here's a simple test: How would she feel about her husband saying something to another, unrelated woman?

I expect my son to be helpful toward people in general. If a man is struggling with heavy packages and a door, he should probably help.

The link about the dress codes wasn't saying that all dress codes are bad. It was specifically objecting to language used by a principal which made it into a sexual thing. My kids go to a school with a dress code. ALL students, male and female, need to keep shoulders, torso and knees covered, and to dress in a way that's neat, dignified and not offensive. No feminist objections here.

I can't quite figure out the logic of her rant against "easy" girls. How about telling your sons to look at someone's character, not just their body? Newsflash: I know plenty of women who dress modestly, but still engage in casual sex or even adultery. In my experience, revealing clothing is more likely to be about the weather than the girl. This is what the local fashionistas are wearing here now: http://www.canada-goose.com/

I want my son's future spouse to respect him because he's growing up to be an awesome human being, full of love and care and decency. If she happens to be a bit of a tomboy, even better - he'll have someone who appreciates his love of hockey.

[roddma]

I guess she i is unaware some religious groups want to turn women back 100 yers and thats what we fight against. Feminism give her the right to rant. It gives Michelle Duggar and Kelly Bates the right to umpteen kids. They can submit and look adoringly at their husbands all they want. They are feminists in a sense because unlike their daughters they CHOSE that path.

[FloraKitty35]

She must not appreciate her right to own property rather be property of a man.

[anjulibai]

As a mother raising her son to be a gentleman, I really disagree with everything she says. Her definition of gentleman and mine are very different.

My son will be raised a feminist, just like his father. Bet that last part would make her head explode.

[DGayle]

I wonder if she would think any different if she had a daughter.

[LadyBlue]

I have 4 boys and I don't think I could disagree with her more.

That's all, because I can't even with that nonsense.

[Coco]

I guess she i is unaware some religious groups want to turn women back 100 yers and thats what we fight against. Feminism give her the right to rant. It gives Michelle Duggar and Kelly Bates the right to umpteen kids. They can submit and look adoringly at their husbands all they want. They are feminists in a sense because unlike their daughters they CHOSE that path.

This.

[patsymae]

Response--warning, long post

“I am raising them to appreciate the beauty in a person based on what that person believes and how that person makes my boys feel, not on what that person is wearing or how much of their skin is exposed.â€

“based on what that person believesâ€â€”judge a person based on what they believe?

“how that person makes my boys feelâ€â€”oh geez. Value beauty based the feelings that others (presumably this only replies to women) induce in them. Exactly what are these women supposed to make these boys feel? Why is it up to women to induce appropriate feelings in men?

As opposed to “feminists,†who want boys to appreciate beauty based on how much skin is exposed?

“But, the latest campaigns by the feminist movement are telling boys they are wrong if they do these things,â€

What are the “latest campaigns†of the “feminist movement� Is there some massive national campaign that I have missed? Or is the under the impression that this is still 1964 (not that this was ever the feminist message in 1964, just a knee-jerk reaction that was stupid even at that time)?

“They cite the statistic that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted, but seem to ignore that they are sending the message to little girls to assume 100% of all men are rapists.â€

Some home schooling math here.

“their breasts (and bellies and butt cheeks)â€

Please nobody take this the wrong way (just by way of disclosure I became pregnant from a gang rape at age 15, so I am in NO way saying that women exposing any part of their body should justify anything disgusting or certainly violent on the part of a male), but really, in 2014 America, exposing “bellies†just isn’t the same as exposing breasts. Maybe I should rethink this comment, not sure it’s coming out right.

“how about encouraging all students to simply dress with decency in a public institution designed for education and growth, instead of focusing on elevating social status and hooking up?â€

As far as I know, most school dress codes are designed to have students dress with decency in …. And in some private or parochial schools, or public schools that have uniforms, they are specifically designed to eliminate social status related to clothes (not saying it works, just that that’s what they try for.) Hooking up? Huh?

“I don’t want my sons to ever have to submit to the anger of a woman who believes she is justified in treating him with disrespect based on the feminist movement.â€

Just wow. What is submitting to the anger of a woman? Can a woman never be angry with her son? If a woman becomes angry with her son, is the only reason because of the “feminist†movement? What is submitting to that anger? Listening to her? Working things out with her?

What is “disrespect� Is that the same as “disagreeing’? If a woman disagrees in a manner considered by your sons to be disrespectful, what do you think he should be allowed to do to correct the situation?

“Respect is earned, not demanded. There will never be a time when I will tell my boys not to treasure, protect and admire the women in their lives because “Women don’t need a man to feel valued.†I say, “Value all people and the gifts they bring.†Only then will the world be truly fair and equal.â€

Or, if I weren’t seriously insane and defensive, I would say “Respect is earned, not demanded. There will never be a time when I will tell my boys not to treasure, protect and admire the women in their lives .I say, “Value all people and the gifts they bring.†Only then will the world be truly fair and equal.â€

because “Women don’t need a man to feel valued.�

Not so much.

[crazyforkate]

What is with this "I HAVE SOOOOOONS" anti-feminist trend lately? Surely these people can figure out that liberating everyone from expected roles is beneficial to men, too.

[RosyDaisy]

Fuck that fun die bitch!

[julie paradox]

tl;dr FEMINISTS DRESS SLUTTY AND HATE MEN YOU GUYS

[Bluenoser]

Might wanna grab some popcorn folks ... :popcorn2:

I think the delivery of the artcle lacks some eloquence, but I don't entirely disagree.

They ARE saying that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value.

This is a myth, I can dig up some info if you'd like to see the break down and where these numbers came from.

They are also saying that women shouldn't live in fear of sexual assault, and that street harassment makes public spaces hostile and threatening for women. No, street harassment doesn't consist of making eye contact and saying "hello" to everyone. For starters, it usually involves eyes elsewhere, and saying more than hello. It's not a bad idea, though, to teach your son that he should know a woman for more than 1 second before coming on to her.

I think current day feminism has over simplified this issue and the solution. It's not as simple as telling men they need to stop "objectifying" women. Society unfortunately isn't made up of families from loving homes and supportive like minded friends. It's complex, there is mental illness, adults who were abused as children, drug addicts, victims of extreme poverty etc. Bascially, people who probably didn't get the get gentle lesson that it might not be ok to say things certain things because it might make people uncomfortable. Yah, it sucks when someone says something that makes you feel uneasy ... but it's not a crime and it's no ones god given right to never be offended.

If my son had a girlfriend, wife or daughter, then yes, I would expect him to tell them that they are beautiful. If a female friend is trying on outfits and asks for his opinion, "beautiful" is an appropriate response. Otherwise, it's a weird thing to say to someone you don't know. Here's a simple test: How would she feel about her husband saying something to another, unrelated woman?

I would actually want the truth about how an outfit looked on me. But, the appropriate response is between the couple and they will have to decide what is acceptable to each of them. Depending on the context, I don't really care what my husband says to other women. If a woman stopped him and said how do I look, if she looks beautiful, let her know.

The link about the dress codes wasn't saying that all dress codes are bad. It was specifically objecting to language used by a principal which made it into a sexual thing. My kids go to a school with a dress code. ALL students, male and female, need to keep shoulders, torso and knees covered, and to dress in a way that's neat, dignified and not offensive. No feminist objections here.?

Totally agree. It's also takes some of the stresses off your societal class.

I can't quite figure out the logic of her rant against "easy" girls. How about telling your sons to look at someone's character, not just their body? Newsflash: I know plenty of women who dress modestly, but still engage in casual sex or even adultery. In my experience, revealing clothing is more likely to be about the weather than the girl. This is what the local fashionistas are wearing here now: http://www.canada-goose.com/

I think she might have been alluding to girls with poor self esteem who dress scantilly to purposely attract men. I don't think how you dress always says something about your moral convictions, but humans make assumptions.

I think a lot of the movement today is about splitting hairs and that everyone's moral convictions should match your own. I do think that feminism has a place in our world, we should keep the homefires burning because there are countries whose women are in dire need of liberation.

I am a woman, but I'll be fucking damned if people think I'm so fragile some cat call or unwanted butt grope would break me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re harassment:

I can figure out when comments are made by someone who is drunk or high, when someone is clearly off their meds, or even when someone is fresh off the boat and hasn't learned the cultural norms re talking to strangers. One of my old jobs involved working with folks who were too mentally incompetent to hire their own lawyer. It's not just about comfort.

Cat calls and "butt gropes" are something else. They are done intentionally. It has nothing to do with someone wanting to relate to you as a human being. It creates a hostile environment.

Yes, there are countries where women have it worse. Women tend to face even more street harassment in those countries.

[Bluenoser]

Is the attempt to muzzle cat calls not a violation of the first amendment? Homeless people running up to me begging for money also makes me uncomfortable. So do people handing out religious pamplets and asking me to sign petitions for whatever cause.

It's cool to say, Hey I don't like it when people do "whatever thing", but it doesn't afford us special privileges. There is going to be a few things we need to suck up becuase maybe it's not fair, but such is life.

I must say, butt grabs/gropes however, are not cool. I do agree. While I might be able to say, no big deal, I don't care, I would not blame and would encourage someone to report that kind of behaviour.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Is the attempt to muzzle cat calls not a violation of the first amendment? Homeless people running up to me begging for money also makes me uncomfortable. So do people handing out religious pamplets and asking me to sign petitions for whatever cause.

It's cool to say, Hey I don't like it when people do "whatever thing", but it doesn't afford us special privileges. There is going to be a few things we need to suck up becuase maybe it's not fair, but such is life.

I must say, butt grabs/gropes however, are not cool. I do agree. While I might be able to say, no big deal, I don't care, I would not blame and would encourage someone to report that kind of behaviour.

The First Amendment (and section 2 of the Charter of Rights in Canada) applies to laws and government action, not individual action.

If the government passed a law saying that it was illegal to call out "hey, baby", that would be a potential violation of Constitutional rights.

On the other hand, if activists engage in protests and raise awareness and make it socially unacceptable to harass women on the street, if doing so might put your job at risk, and if women and male bystanders start responding in a negative way, that's not a government action. It's perfectly Constitutional. You can say whatever you want, but you can't force people not to have a negative reaction.

[Bluenoser]

Is this not an example of censorship then?

I understand the plight, but I think what is being hailed as a solution is overly simplified. Is the movement a success if we reduce street harrassment against women by 25% from the now "educated men" but constanty have to make allowances for the mentally unstable who continue to engage in the behavior? You've said you can usually recognize those people and know to dismiss their comments, but I and others do not have that ability.

And do the few who were spewing cat calls really respect women because of the movement, or do they simply shut up because the risks outweigh the benefits.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Is this not an example of censorship then?

I understand the plight, but I think what is being hailed as a solution is overly simplified. Is the movement a success if we reduce street harrassment against women by 25% from the now "educated men" but constanty have to make allowances for the mentally unstable who continue to engage in the behavior? You've said you can usually recognize those people and know to dismiss their comments, but I and others do not have that ability.

And do the few who were spewing cat calls really respect women because of the movement, or do they simply shut up because the risks outweigh the benefits.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.ihollaback.org/?s=myths

Censorship??

Nobody is actually preventing someone from saying anything. We are talking about making it socially unacceptable to harass women.

In terms of employment - sorry, employees do not actually have the right to say anything they want, if it badly impacts the workplace or reflects badly on their employer. So yes, if you are harassed by a municipal employee, or on a construction site, or by workers from a particular office building, you can let the employer know what happened and demand action.

Again, we are talking about making something socially unacceptable. Yes, a symptom of some forms of mental illness is doing things that are socially unacceptable. The typical result is that people around you start clearing the way and avoiding you.

Does eliminating a lot of overt street harassment ensure that all men are magically respectful? No. Jian Ghomeshi is an example of a man who knew all the right words in public, but acted differently in private. The presence of street harassment, where it is not challenged, though, does create a hostile atmosphere. [i would also include those who scream about modesty as a form of street sexual harassment - different words, similar effect. Both serve to treat women as sex objects instead of people, make us feel threatened and restrict our presence in the public space.] If it's done and nobody cares, that sends a message that this treatment is okay.

[Bluenoser]

Taken from the Hollaback website -

We present collected and mapped data to elected officials and policymakers in areas experiencing high incidences of street harassment and will engage legislators to work with our trained leaders to address street harassment in their communities. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/about/#sthash.1O6ZkiAu.dpuf

Hollaback! provides comfort to those harassed, and proof that street harassment is a serious problem warranting a serious response from policy makers. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/about/#sthash.1O6ZkiAu.dpuf

Seems like an attempt at censorship and possible profiling to me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The main thing that the organization is doing is documenting street harassment in a large, systemic way. What's the problem with that?

Addressing any social problem begins with understanding the scope and dynamics of the problem.

They talk about getting a response from policy makers, but they don't specify what that response would be. Controlling speech on the street will always be more difficult in any country with a right to free speech. Free speech, however, doesn't prevent other measures, such as public education, extra patrols in high-risk areas, use of existing laws, making street harassment grounds for losing government employment or for revocation of license for street-based business, etc.

[formergothardite]

Really?! Are you really trying to claim that changing society so that harassing behavior is no longer socially acceptable is censorship? 50-60 years ago I could stand on the main street of my town and scream "N****! Get off the sidewalk!" and it wouldn't be a big deal. Now it would be a huge deal. Does it mean that their are no racists around here? Hell no. There are. It does mean that society has changed enough where people know not to behave in such a way, at least out in public. And this creates a safer atmosphere. Are you going to also bemoan how the poor racists have been censored?

[Bluenoser]

The main thing that the organization is doing is documenting street harassment in a large, systemic way. What's the problem with that?.

Nothing, except the risk of profiling.

They talk about getting a response from policy makers, but they don't specify what that response would be. Controlling speech on the street will always be more difficult in any country with a right to free speech. Free speech, however, doesn't prevent other measures, such as public education, extra patrols in high-risk areas, use of existing laws, making street harassment grounds for losing government employment or for revocation of license for street-based business, etc.

I agree, they are pretty vague about what they actually want instituted. What kind of patrols in high risk areas? You can't institute a law without infriging on rights. Will it be cops around to say "Hey, Be nice and mind you manners!" I think most businesses have rules about what is acceptable behavior for their employees. I'm in agreement that it's not unreasonable for an employer to fire an employee for conducting themselves in an unbecoming matter and it does happen. Making some kind of law against it, mmm ... not so much. I don't think I should lose my job because I told someone to "Fuck Off" and they filed a harassment charge.

Really?! Are you really trying to claim that changing society so that harassing behavior is no longer socially acceptable is censorship? 50-60 years ago I could stand on the main street of my town and scream "N****! Get off the sidewalk!" and it wouldn't be a big deal. Now it would be a huge deal. Does it mean that their are no racists around here? Hell no. There are. It does mean that society has changed enough where people know not to behave in such a way, at least out in public. And this creates a safer atmosphere. Are you going to also bemoan how the poor racists have been censored?.

What? I never said I was condoning the action. I think the majority agrees that harassing people on the street isn't a great thing to do. It's not illegal to say "N*****". Sure it's racist and unbecoming, but I'm not actually censored against saying it. That would be an infringement on my rights. But, I'm a decent person and would never have any context to spew that word.

It's a hard thing to govern. Who decides what offensive and what qualifies as harassment. For you, it might be " Flowers for the Beautiful lady" and me it'd probably be " You dirty twat flap".

[DGayle]

Taken from the Hollaback website -

Seems like an attempt at censorship and possible profiling to me.

How on earth is this profiling, and why are you so bent on defending harassers? People like you are the problem. It's already been pointed out that policies to address this have many options other than making it illegal. So where's the problem?

Identifying high-risk areas isn't profiling, if that's what you're zoning in on. A peaceful area without a harassment problem isn't going to suddenly be high-risk. High-risk in this sense is a reaction to what's already happening.

I don't think I should lose my job because I told someone to "Fuck Off" and they filed a harassment charge.

Depends. Are you at work where you're representing the company, or at a party where someone only knows your job because they asked someone else?

[Bluenoser]

How on earth is this profiling, and why are you so bent on defending harassers? People like you are the problem. It's already been pointed out that policies to address this have many options other than making it illegal. So where's the problem?

Identifying high-risk areas isn't profiling, if that's what you're zoning in on. A peaceful area without a harassment problem isn't going to suddenly be high-risk. High-risk in this sense is a reaction to what's already happening.

Depends. Are you at work where you're representing the company, or at a party where someone only knows your job because they asked someone else?

^^ Wouldn't matter, I would want it left to the discretion of my employer.

I never said it was profiling, I said there was a possibility. I'm not defending the harassers, I'm defending the right to freedom of speech. If you want to straw man that, go ahead. People like you are also the problem when you think your logic is infallible to criticism.

I've stated that this is overly simplistic, the matter of street harassment is complex and the solution is black and white. It would be awesome if people didn't say shitty things to each other. But being offended by something doesn't give us special rights. A portion of street harassment comes from metally ill, homeless, and people different culture. How will we address them? What if the root of the problem of harassment begins in childhood, if shitty parents parents are raising the kids, an ettiquette movement isn't going to change that. What about the petitioners, street evangelists, beggars. They make me feel uncomfortable, I would go as far to say hostile when they are aggressive in their attempts. Can the street harassment law apply to them?

[2xx1xy1JD]

The question of "what are you going to do about it?" is legitimate. I'd agree that you can't legislate niceness on public streets.

There are EXISTING laws in some places against:

- loitering

- some forms of aggressive panhandling (not just begging, but doing so in ways that are particularly intimidating such as near ATMs)

- unwanted physical contact

Re patrols:

One problem is street harassment isn't just that it may offend. It's that it creates a climate of fear. You have no way of knowing if someone is merely making a rude comment, or if things may escalate - esp. if the comments are particuarly explicit, if the person follows you or if they are getting hostile. If you see patrols in the area, and you know that you can easily get assistance/protection if you need it, it's easier to feel safe.

I've had a couple of borderline situations where I was unsure whether cultural issues were a factor. One involved a strange man striking up a conversation with me on public transit, and explaining that he had arrived in the country 2 weeks before. That's extremely out of the norm for Toronto (where you never talk to strangers on transit, ever), but I do believe that it was cultural. Another involved a language professor who made a comment to me one day about how he never noticed my blue eyes before. I thought it was a weird thing to say to a student, I heard whispers that some other students had concerns, but he's dead now and I never came to a conclusion.

I'm pretty sure that anyone living here, regardless of culture, can figure out that some things, like obvious catcalls or explicit comments to strangers, are just not appropriate. We can shift whether someone's buddies laugh or consider him a creep, we can change the reaction when this is done, but nobody considers it nice behavior.

If there's any place for public education on what is and is not appropriate, I see it more for those borderline situations, and cases where men may not have thought about how something can be seen as threatening. Stuff like hitting on someone in a work-related situation, situations of possible power dynamics (for example, professor/student), propositioning someone at night in an elevator, etc.