Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[*Anya*]

You can not see me right now but I am giving you a standing ovation.

Yes, yes and yes, again for your oh-so eloquent post. It reminds me so well of all the reasons why my feminism is so much a part of who I am.

I have pushed it down, dampened my feelings and beliefs in order to work, raise my children to their own respective womanhood and to be able to support them.

Thank you.

[Kobi]

In the words of my ancestors, holy canoli Chazz! This made the radical feminist inside of me stand at attention.

I agree with your analysis. And, it is very clear to me, even if I dont have the postmodern terminology for it. What I am finding in print, to me, seems like an excess use of words to justify positions rather than something firmly grounded in female focused, female driven quest to attack the underlying pathology of the patriarchy.

And, I tend to look more at real life manifestations rather than the "theoretical analysis" of it. Often times the rhetoric doesnt fit the reality, no matter how many words we use to make it appear like it is something else.

In my opinion, when I look at the world, I see so many good changes for women. Yet, I also see more responsibility as well and perhaps in unintended ways. There is always a flip side to everything. If one bears more, another bears less.

There have been unmistakeable benefits for educated white women in professions that afford them more general freedoms. For non white, uneducated or less educated women there have been few if any benefits. Poverty in this group is rising at unprecedented porportions. http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

Women freed ourselves sexually. Yay! Now, think again. We, as women, are second class citizens in a patriarchy. Did we "free" ourselves or did the partriarchy see there was a huge benefit to IT and them if we were "free"? Is it a win-win or are have we just played into our own objectification? Who wins in the politics of sex in a patriarchy?

Women took control of their own financial wellbeing. Yay for us! Now, think again. If we are supporting ourselves, who ends up having more disposable income?

Women took control of reproduction. Yay for us! Now, think again. We spend billions of dollars a year on a growing number of contraceptives which have the potential to adversely affect our bodies, our health and endanger our very lives. We bear the burden of the expense and risk to our heath. Male contraceptive, at the moment, still revolves around condoms and for the non wimping ones, a vasectomy. Orgasms aside, who won here?

Growing numbers of women who want to be a parent are happy to proceed without husbands and father figures for their children. I actually kind of like this one. But, men, in those cases, are merely sperm donors, without any financial or parental responsibility for the product of their seed. Looks to me like more for women and less for men again.

So, while we are so busy with getting an education, working, being sexually free, being parents without help, and all the other lovely "perks" of women's liberation, how much time and energy do we have to look at and speak to the "new and improved" manifestations of our oppression?

The great thinkers and leaders of feminism in my generation had a vision and foresight which continues to astound me. The great thinkers and leaders of today havent impressed me as much. They are well spoken, well educated, can turn a phrase with the best of them, and debate at a level that still eludes my full comprehension.

Yet, to me, the post modernists have dropped the proverbial ball. Actions speak louder than words. And when I look around me, I see some nifty stuff happened for women.

But, in the scheme of the patriarchy, greater things happened for IT and for those who benefit the most from it.

In case I havent said it today....I love this thread and all the great minds that are contributing to it.

[Apocalipstic]

I think things are better for women in many ways than they were when I was a child in the 60's, but they have not changed enough I agree and since the ERA was not passed we don't see as much written about of fought for except for from those who want to make abortions and birth control harder to get and want to re-establish what counts as rape. Rape affects us all. Pregnancies due to rate affect all women. Birth control affects everyone as we get more and more overcrowded....

Also, this "give the fathers the kids" shift. The children used to always go to the mother, but now, in the name of Women's Lib...somehow the trend seems to be to give the kids to the fathers, especially if they have more money...which considering the still wide split in wages...they are likely to have.

As a child I grew up with my father telling me he had total control of me and could do anything he wanted and he was right.

Yes more has been done with children's right and yes women can own property without a man but so much more is expected of us and the trend seems to be going back to a 50's model of marriage.

It really weirds me out that things are so much more conservative now than they were in the 70's and 80's. And rarely do we hear a peep from anyone about Equal Rights for Women.

Chazz, good for you for being a stand up Mom. It is heartbreaking that anyone would use a child as a pawn in a break up or just refuse to achnowledge that someone who was in a child's life for years should have the right to at least see the child.

[Heart]

[QUOTE=apocalipstic;397051]The children used to always go to the mother, but now, in the name of Women's Lib...somehow the trend seems to be to give the kids to the fathers, especially if they have more money...which considering the still wide split in wages...they are likely to have.
QUOTE]

Actually, it's a fallacy that kids always went to the mother. The truth is that historically fathers rarely sought custody of their children, so mom was the default. And when fathers did contest custody, they usually won - sometimes because they had more means, and sometimes simply because they were fathers making a demand and the courts complied, even if the mother was fit.

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives, with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling).

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponants of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

[Apocalipstic]

[quote=Heart;397071]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

The children used to always go to the mother, but now, in the name of Women's Lib...somehow the trend seems to be to give the kids to the fathers, especially if they have more money...which considering the still wide split in wages...they are likely to have.
QUOTE]

Actually, it's a fallacy that kids always went to the mother. The truth is that historically fathers rarely sought custody of their children, so mom was the default. And when fathers did contest custody, they usually won - sometimes because they had more means, and sometimes simply because they were fathers making a demand and the courts complied, even if the mother was fit.

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives, with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling).

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponants of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

Thank you for clarifying this. In the cases I know of personally, it have been about control and money and men have more of both, so they win.

Honestly the reason I never had children of my own is that I knew here in TN that my own father would have stepped in and gotten custody. That is what happens inn places like this. I could have moved, but staying here was more important to me at the time. Having a child somewhere with no support network where I did not know any one seemed too overwhelming.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

....Chazz, good for you for being a stand up Mom. It is heartbreaking that anyone would use a child as a pawn in a break up or just refuse to achnowledge that someone who was in a child's life for years should have the right to at least see the child.

I did the best I could, apocalipstic. Thank you for the recognition.

To this day, patriarchy (and it's enforcers) still see children as possessions, chattel. Many men still "their women" this way, too. No amount of neo-age, PC rhetoric has altered that an iota.

Even when a father is little more than a sperm donor, he has total ownership of a child. It doesn't matter that said child was parented, nurtured or financially supported by someone else for years. Biology IS destiny in the concrete world whether post-modernists recognize it or not through the haze of their immanent acts of mind.

Originally Posted by Heart

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives [and punish them], with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling). [Changes in terminology are always telling.]

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. [Claiming to be the greater victim/the aggrieved party are men's tools of choice these days as they expand their dominion over women.] They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponents of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

And gender theory is addressing these issues how?

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Chazz

And gender theory is addressing these issues how?

I'm not an academic and not an expert in gender theory or feminist theory, by any means. But Rosi Braidotti, an Italian feminist, has criticized gender studies as: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity (including gay male identity), instead."

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

I'm not an academic and not an expert in gender theory or feminist theory, by any means. But Rosi Braidotti, an Italian feminist, has criticized gender studies as: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity (including gay male identity), instead."

In practice, gender theory is exactly that: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity, instead...."

To that, I would add: Gender theory is also the rebranding of "womanhood", "female", "femininity" by men who cherish the binary and gender constructs because both serve their immanent acts of mind.

The bitter irony of lesbians being in the service of that agenda has turned "Sisterhood is powerful" into "Sisterhood as farce".