MetaChat - Warm fuzzy family-friendly feminism.

(Keeping the warm fuzzies up requires skipping the comments portion of that article, however.)

posted by occhiblu 29 January | 18:29

This is probably the wrong thread to crack a "keeping the warm fuzzies up" joke, but... well, yeah. Feminists. You know I love 'em!

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 29 January | 18:38

Ha! No, I think it's the pefect thread in which to do it.

posted by occhiblu 29 January | 18:46

Rock on, Neil Chethik! I wish more men understood the benefits of feminism.

Women, too, actually. I just read an interview with Gwen Stefani where she refused to identify herself as a feminist because, and I paraphrase, "no one's been able to really define it for me." So...what..you've been too busy wig shopping and yodelling with goatherders to pick up a damn dictionary? Please.

posted by jrossi4r 29 January | 18:55

jrossi that Stefani's remarks speak to the fact that feminism does not have a clearly defined normative definition, or a positive 'brand association' in most people's views. Rather, it is associated, for most folks, with the academic excesses of the 80s.

posted by pieisexactlythree 29 January | 19:23

I should have mentioned that the interview was in Bust magazine, which made her seem extra dumb to me.

At it's core, feminism is about equality. That's really not a mystery. Just as at it's core "Christianity" is about following Jesus. You can argue about how best to go about it, you can schism a million times over, but that one core belief IS the definition. So it's lazy, to me, to cop out and say, "I don't know what that means." I presume it's because she wants to avoid the negative connotation the right has succeeded in giving to the word. How lame.

posted by jrossi4r 29 January | 19:48

Rather, it is associated, for most folks, with the academic excesses of the 80s

Proving yet again that we're often most threatened by that which we don't understand.

posted by Lassie 29 January | 19:49

"Proving yet again that we're often most threatened by that which we don't understand."
posted by Lassie 29 January

I've never felt threatened by feminists with anything but stupefying boredom, on occasion, nearly to tears. But, thanks to feminists, it's OK for men to cry.

That's little enough to be grateful to feminists for, I suppose, but it's what I've got.

posted by paulsc 29 January | 20:29

Hmmm, perhaps my comment came off the wrong way there. I wasn't implying that anyone here is necessarily threatened by feminism, or feminists, for that matter. Rather, my comment was meant to be a more general response to pieisexactlythree's phrase "the academic excesses of the 80's," since I feel that a lot of the feminism that came out of the 80's was (as jrossi4r also points out) seized upon by political factions and distorted beyond ordinary understanding.

posted by Lassie 29 January | 20:42

Your comment didn't come off the wrong way, Lassie. That's just paulsc sharing his always-thought-provoking views on gender relations. Or maybe just "provoking."

posted by mudpuppie 29 January | 20:51

Ah, good, because my first instinct was to respond, "All feminists threaten you with stupefying boredom? Clearly, we know very different kinds of feminists!" I appreciate your explanation, as well as listening to my gut and deleting that initial response.

posted by Lassie 29 January | 21:03

I [heart] occhiblu.

How's that for warm 'n' fuzzy?

posted by SassHat 29 January | 21:30

Rather, my comment was meant to be a more general response to pieisexactlythree's phrase "the academic excesses of the 80's," since I feel that a lot of the feminism that came out of the 80's was (as jrossi4r also points out) seized upon by political factions and distorted beyond ordinary understanding.

Then why didn't you just say that? I really hate that smug and cryptic one-liner that some people tend to use on Internet forums (especially Metafilter). Most people here are intelligent, if you disagree with what they say at least give them the courtesy of explaining why. Veiling your reasoning just makes it seem like you and everyone else reading is in the know while the person who made the original statement feels alienated and ignorant.

Sorry to rant, but this is my version of Mike's "Um."

posted by mullacc 29 January | 21:53

MIKO ~~Mike~~'s "Um." Sorry! Of all threads to make that typo...

posted by mullacc 29 January | 21:54

You're probably right about the effect of my comment, mullacc, although I certainly didn't mean it to be either smug or cryptic -- in my head it made perfect sense, almost the continuation of a thought process. Sorry about that. Also, I wasn't disagreeing with piesisexactlythree either.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled warm and fuzzy.

posted by Lassie 29 January | 22:02

Can't we all just be feminists with "benefits"?

Seriously, a very apropos Doonesbury. Key phrase: "Once a social transformation is largely complete, the language that drove it loses both urgency and meaning."

posted by stilicho 29 January | 22:13

Loving your turn of phrase jrossi, but what exactly is wrong with wig buying and yodelling with goatherders¿
I enjoy yodelling. Music.
Indulge, go ahead, ...
]Mule Skinner Blues (Blue Yodel No. 8) — Roy Acuff

IMO, sufragettes, ]tongue in cheek[ why are people still asking this question of you¿ They 'aint sufragettes any longer and ...
Gwen Stefanni is a good role model and doing her thing. She could ask said interviewer/__________ "and why would you be asking me this question¿"

So, obvioulsy, the reply. It's an odd question to ask anyone, let alone a woman. Human beings first, then gender specific, or not.

posted by alicesshoe 29 January | 22:15

Ran across this ealier. I had forgot all about it until I saw it again.

posted by arse_hat 29 January | 22:31

I don't think it's an odd question to ask. Especially since it's a publication with a seriously feminist bent and since she did write "I'm Just a Girl."

posted by jrossi4r 29 January | 22:35

I love that, arsey! Batgirl's hardcore.

posted by jrossi4r 29 January | 22:38

I [heart] SassHat. And jrossi. And others. WARM FUZZIES, DAMMIT.

posted by occhiblu 29 January | 22:50

jrossi I picture the next part as something like.

Batman: Batgirl, the money. I do pay Robin more. It's not that I'm sexist.
I'm.
I'm.

I'm a man in love!

posted by arse_hat 29 January | 22:55

Feminism = Common sense

posted by hadjiboy 29 January | 23:02

Nice read. I support feminism and equal rights, equal pay for the same job, joining the military as a soldier and everything else. I just wish we could come to a time where we wouldn't have to give ourselves titles such as feminist, mannist, blackist, hispanicist, or whatever, and just call ourselves people. Nice dream, eh?

posted by eekacat 29 January | 23:06

Yes, nice dream indeed. The only way to make it happen is to just do it. If enough people start to actually think of people as just people and not black people or female people or whatever, it will catch on eventually. Anything else simply won't work, because people will actively resist attempts to force them to think in ways other than those they currently have imprinted on them. Sad, but true.

posted by dg 30 January | 00:04

putting on contrarian hat: I do not believe in feminism or equality. Women are just better. why, if paul can do it, why not me?

No seriously, I get to see more and more men who sacrifice (or tone down) their careers to let their wives take a better position, work more etc. But definitely not half of the married couples I know. Not even close.

putting on the tall-contrarian hat: Pelosi is nice but I prefer some other women politicians (in the Senate) because of their background and humble beginnings. Barbara Boxer, Mikulski, Murray, Blanche Lincoln. Now them, are inspiring.

posted by carmina 30 January | 00:44

29 January 2007