::is feminism dead?
9:48 a.m. - 2005-02-08
forget what my parents say about gay people: the only openly gay teacher that i have ever had in my entire LIFE just talked to us in class for like ten minutes and then LET. US. LEAVE. fuck, that right there alone is enough to say she's allright in my book.
i open with that statement lightly, but there are some deeper issues here that i feel encouraged to discuss.
this morning, as i punched away at my computer and revised my final draft (okay, i was revising my first draft to make the second--thus final--draft, but work with me here), the today show conveniently blared out from my television, where katie couric grinned emptily into the camera.
that's mean, because i really do like katie couric, or i did until today at least.
in case you missed your morning dose of wake-up television, allow me to share. they were doing a piece on feminism in today's society and whether or not it is still alive/necessary. it was actually a great piece, featuring gloria steinem and many well-rounded points-of-view on the topic. unfortunately, being well-rounded includes featuring the housewives from kansas who "really don't call [themselves] feminists, because... wait, is there really a need for it anymore? i mean, we hay-UVE the right to vote," right before they proceeded to say that the term feminist is just a little "uhh, well, i think it's just too extreme."
that is not verbatim, of course, but it's close enough that whatever the housewife said made me want to claw out my own eyeballs just as badly as hearing that statement aloud does--and trust me, i live in north carolina: i have HEARD SIMILAR STATEMENTS. ignorance may be bliss, people, but for the rest of us, it's a bitch.
anyway, i did appreciate the journalism for what it was and i always welcome an interview with ms. steinem. however, the part that REALLY irked me was the simple introductory statement, as katie faced that camera and tried to draw in the audience with the upcoming piece on feminism and how it has changed since it started... THIRTY. YEARS. AGO.
now, if you are not already cringing at what is wrong with that statement, i really don't believe there's too much hope for you, but alas, stick with me and maybe you'll learn something.
thirty years ago from today puts us in the year 1975.
now, yes, i am a hardcore feminist--as in, not only will i rant about it endlessly, but have taken the time to memorize facts to back up my rantings and THOROUGHLY scare people. well, the time has come to draw on those facts. consider this your herstory lesson for today.
first of all, is the name elizabeth cady stanton familiar? it should be: she organized the first women's rights convention in seneca falls, ny in 1848. she was probably the leading 19th-century advocate for women's rights, if not the founder of the movement in the united states. as you can see, 1848 is NOT. INCLUDED. in that 30-year time frame, as given to us by katie couric (and later repeated verbatim by matt lauer, so don't think it was just a one-time mistake, OH NO.)
anyway, although much didn't happen within the next fifty years that we can definitively pinpoint as progress (i.e. legislation, massive riots, et cetera), the beginning of the 20th century exploded with massive radical movements on the part of women.
okay, i really don't want to write a paper here, seeing as how this is my diary, not a class... and i just finished writing a paper, so i can't say i'm in the mood to do it all over again.
but this stuff is so important to our history. why don't people know that women received the right to vote on august 26, 1920? why don't they know that contraception in pill form did not become available to american women until 1960?
i mean, these are important events that changed the course of our society FOREVER, possibly as much as, if not MORE than the civil rights movement. i know that's probably considered blasphemy by most minorities, but i firmly believe it's true.
so i'm just going to keep on with my did-you-know and hope to GOD that some of it sticks.
griswold v. connecticut, 1965--when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for married couples to use a contraceptive
roe v. wade, JANUARY 22, 1973--when the supreme court decided that texas could not legally prevent a woman from having an abortion within the first two trimesters, EVEN IF IT DID NOT THREATEN HER LIFE. this was decided under the constitutional right to privacy.
also, there is the small matter of the equal rights amendment. oh wait, something like that has already been passed, right? it's called the civil rights act. NO.
the equal rights amendment was originally called the lucretia mott amendment (an abolitionist who met and worked with stanton); it was drafted in 1923 by alice paul.
it has been introduced into every session of congress of EVERY YEAR SINCE 1923. it still has not been passed.
it was rewritten in 1943 to reflect the newly added 15th and 19th amendments, then renamed the alice paul amendment.
in 1972, the amendment was finally ratified by both houses of congress. under the seven-year expiration imposed on every amendment since prohibition, feminists thought they would have no problem getting it passed. to become an official amendment to the constitution, 38 states would have to pass the era.
in the year of its ratification, 22 states ratified the amendment. in 1973, eight more followed.
however, by 1977--five years after being ratified by congress--the amendment still only had 35 of the 38 required states' support. indiana would be the last state to ratify the amendment that year; furthermore, alice paul passed away that year, 44 years after penning the era. she never saw it passed into legislation.
don't be misled: you haven't seen it passed into legislation either.
as the seven-year expiration approached, the national organization of women (NOW) organized a successful march of over 100,00 supporters in washington dc during july of 1978. congress granted an extension until june 30, 1982--one year to the day before i was born (not that it matters but it makes me feel connected somehow).
the deadline, and extension, came and went without success.
the amendment was reintroduced to congress on july 14, 1982. it has been reintroduced to every session of congress since then.
so, what exactly is the equal rights amendment? it has to be pretty fancy and militant to draw so many supporters, yet continuously face such strong opposition, right?
here, in all of its glory, is the equal rights amendment:
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
that's it. yet, in the year 2005, it remains unseen as a part of our constitution.
but we don't need it, right? look at society! we love women! even lesbians! why is there still a need for feminism?
i can't force my opinion on you; i can, however, provide a few statistics for you to remember next time someone laughs off the idea of modern feminism.
as of today, women only earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.
out of all the people in the world living in poverty, 70% are WOMEN.
out of all of the illiterate people in the world, two-thirds are WOMEN.
1 in 4 women will be raped or sexually assaulted in her lifetime. think of four women you know; now think of one of them "asking for it" with her low-cut top.
1 in 3 women will be raped or sexually abused as a child. you don't have to think of three women now; i am a woman and you are reading my diary. i am that one.
