Don't mess with the feminist

Do not take that title as a joke! I've once done a paper on the feminist movement in Las Vegas during the 1950s-80s. To research for the paper I read a book called "Storming Caesar's Palace", which I highly recommend. During the time in the book millions of people, black and white, rich and poor, young and old, moved to Las Vegas to take part in the expanding metropolis. The city's geography was set up so that the poor, black immigrants to the city were essentially cut off from the downtown upper class area. But more to the point the government's welfare system was purposefully set up to keep them tied down to the system.

The response? A full out publicity war on Las Vegas luxurious casino's. The women, fed up with the system the state government forced them into, walked calmly into the casino Caesar's Palace, and sat down, they did this several times and to different casinos. It shut down the casino floors and ended up costing the owners millions of dollars in gambling and a slump in tourism. This forced the casino owners, wanting to make money again, to pry Navada's governments hands to change the welfare system to be more accommodating. It lead to a reformed welfare system, improved utilities and schools in their area, and a growth in the single mothers' ability to control their lives.

What happened after? The women wanted complete control of the development of their part of the city. They knew what the area needed and how to go about it the best way. So instead of allowing the state and city government to just make the changes and going back to ignoring them, them took control of the situation and forced them to listen up.

That's why you should not mess with a feminist. They do not take crap from no one, and nor should they.

"How did I know that someday - at college, in Europe, somewhere, anywhere - the bell jar, with its stifling distortions, wouldn't descend again?"

One of my favorite books... THE BELL JAR by Sylvia Plath was mentioned in the chapter about Gender and Sexuality in our text by Kean and Campbell. Don't ask me what the book is about page-by-page (I read it some time in High School...), but from what I remember it's about Esther Greenwood's spiral down in life. The book starts out with her internship in New York City and ends with her in a mental hospital. Esther becomes depressed and suicidal. In the text, they explain Esther as being confused about who she is "'supposed to be' according to the gender roles of America in the 1950s." (216). I knew Esther had a lot of inner struggles, but never saw it as her having to fit into gender roles, specifically. It's interesting to re-analyze a book you've read in the past. I always find that required readings in High School and middle school often go unnoticed...

In class we were asked how we felt people would have initially reacted to Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions". I believe Pat Robertson summed it up best when he was quoted as saying "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." No, not really. Just kidding.

I don't actually believe all people felt the same way about the feminist movement as Pat Robertson does. But he does present an interesting viewpoint (no matter how extreme it may be) towards the feminist movement. While Feminism has changed a lot in the way our society operates, no where is this more apparent than in the way the current family is set up. The notion of the family dynamic has turned away from the original mom and dad and kids. While Pat Robertson addresses many issues (in many illogical ways) what sticks out from his quote is the part about feminism being an "anti-family political movement". While the family has changed definitions thanks to the feminist movement's agenda, I would not call the movement anti-family. Instead I would refer to it as a "new family", because since the feminist movement we have woman in the workplace, more single-parent households, and homosexual families. The feminist movement did more than give women a voice, it has empowered other movements to step forward, and demand equal rights.

Macho Man

In the Campbell and Kean chapter, one of the statements that caught my attention states, “One of the implications of this was a fear among males that their ‘masculinity’ was under threat.” This is in reference to the post 1945 “split character” of the pull of women back into domestic households as well as the pull to the workforce. This “fear,” which was held by many men during this time period, was heavily focused on the idea of “bread-winning” and authority. With the option for women to remain in the workforce, even when men were not at war, rattled the structure of the typical American family of this time. I find the relationship between masculinity and the success of a woman to be quite interesting. Is the femininity of a woman altered if she is married to a successful man? Maybe this double standard of what makes a man masculine compared to what makes a woman feminine, needs to be address; specifically when dealing with second-wave feminist views.

Campbell and Kean uses the examples of Roseanne as well as other to show that the media has tried to show women as being independent. The examples that they use are good at showing people that women are not just a person who lives at your house and cook. However, some modern television shows are belittling the work women have done to show their independence. Shows like The Jersey Shore depict women as being dumb and gold diggers. This is obviously a problem since shows like these are quite popular which means that younger people are seeing these shows and some might even be modeling their lives off of these women.

Women's Liberation (1845-1959) may it rest in peace.

The 60's... the age of sexual revolution... the pill... and tons of unprotected sex

Sounds hella fun right?

But let's look at this from a different standpoint. Not a point of religion or society, but how about morals? Let's look at how the morals of todays society are skewed by the 60's. How acceptable is it to see a half clothed woman in music videos? How often do college guys talk about their weekend escapades? Is this because of the 60's and the sexual revolution and the birth of the pill? (hahaha i know great pun right?) what do you think Elizabeth Cady Stanton would think if she could see society now. It's my belief that from 1845 up until... hell I'll say 1959 women were taking huge strides. However, now when you look at it, some men still look at women as objects, as play toys and cooks. It's honestly of my belief that this entire regression is due to the "sexual revolution" of the 60's. Yeah I know that womens lib was making a heyday in the 60's and 70's but honestly, I think that was just an attempt to get back to the way it was. Have we gone through another regression since then? from 1979 until 2010 have we regressed back to the times when men still thought "Oh crap my dog can talk?" Elizabeth Cady Stanton was an extremely intelligent woman, she believed in formulating thoughts and beliefs and getting them down on paper, not burning bras. Was 1845 a different time? Yes. Will her beliefs still apply now? I believe yes as well.

It is an exciting time. Women have come a long way in terms of equal rights and social status. However, gender roles are still reinforced implicity and explicity in different ways everyday. The media plays a significant role in reinforcing gender roles without us even realizing it. Take a look at magazine advertisements and TV commercials. On TV, women are most often seen cooking, cleaning, and advertising cleaning merchandise. In some ways, one can argue we have a long way to go.