Primarily, I was disappointed by her complete lack of intellectual rigor backing up any of her statements. Her speech rested on the 5 Failures of Feminism, including rise in abortion, the divorce rate, STDs/promiscuity, and the War on Boys (there may be another that I'm forgeting). And she could've made a case connecting anyof them (pretty weakly) to feminism, but instead she ranted about how they were bad and said that feminism caused them and moved promptly onto her next topic without establishing any causal link.
I think she also suffers from a disease that a lot of people have when they think about oppression. When someone says "the patriarchy," it's easy to just imagine a group of old white dudes sitting around a table and controlling things. Maybe they look like this guy.
Kate's reliance on gender roles as inherent and natural was also grating. I know at Smith (and probably tons of other liberal artsy fartsy places) it's drilled into us that gender is a social construct and the associated traits are 98% crap, and Kate was just approaching it from a whole 'nother viewpoint. She often talked about her son and chalked up things to a "boys will be boys" platitude, claiming that their interest in guts and gore and dominating people is inherent because they're supposed to be strong, bold, and courageous to balance out women (...so women can't be bold, strong, and courageous? Oh good).
When someone asked her if she thought this "boys will be boys" mentality lead to excusing rape/sexual assault/harassment, Kate skirted around the question, and actually said that we need to raise boys with discipline and loving guidance to "rein in their instinctive behavior." Wait. So rape is instinctive? I'm sorry, but no. Let's give men some credit: sure, some of them are brutes and rapists and just douches, no doubt. But they asbolutely have the miniscule amount of self control that it takes to refrain from violating a woman. Period.
She quoted the Feminine Mystique, clearly never having cracked the spine of that book (Friedan was NOT a radical. She had children, and a husband, and wanted to improve the lives of housewives. Not exactly crazy ass shit) . She also called a ten-year-old girl who sent her son a picture of herself (with her shirt on) a hussy. She also cut me off when I wanted to correct her about her statement that "radical feminism" (put into quotations because I have no idea what kind of definition this lady was workin' with) leads women to see themselves as sexual and thus as sexual objects solely for men. So I did not much take a liking to Miss Kate.
But what did you guys think? Did anyone find any validity in her speech?
Much love,
The Sheriff
huh. this is interesting. I really do agree with this. It took me a while to really collect all my thoughts about her until a while after hearing the speech, but I came to the same conclusions you have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the strongest problem about her speech is that she didn't really seem to have a definition of feminism. it seemed almost as if she were trying to "dumb it down" or be nice by declaring whatever she was against as "radical feminism."
if she had given me a working definition of her view of feminism, i might have given her a little more credit. She seemed primarily to be focused on the sexual revolution, though. And i respected some of her ideas in that way. The sexual revolution does, in a way, promote rampant sexual behavior on the part of all people, and a sexual behavior that is seen as without consequences. By adding to the fact that she was obviously against "safe sex" and contraceptives, her comment that "feminism" causes STDs makes some sense.
The most striking thing for me was the fact that she didn't realize that she was actually a feminist herself. She kept repeating that it was important that parents provide a moral framework for kids AGAINST magazines, tv and popular culture. Something tells me those "bad influences" rub her the wrong way in the same manner that they do "feminists."
I hate to nitpick, but the speaker said the "hussy" was 13, not ten, and wore a very low cut shirt, which Obenshein was offended by as it was sent to her 11-year old son who seems to be going through an impressionable time, from what she told us. I definitely don't agree that she should have resorted to name-calling. But I understand that some people are offended by the act of exposing a lot of flesh. Coming from a Muslim background, I have never been able to understand the argument that women should continue to dress revealingly, because by dressing essentially like me, it would be letting lecherous men win instead of teaching them not to stare. I stare. Not because I'm a pervert, but because I am simply not used to seeing that much flesh and it diverts my visual attention.
ReplyDeleteI disagreed with a lot of Obenshein's points, but I agreed with some of what she was fundamentally saying, like the point mentioned above. If anything, I appreciated her injections of humor into the lighter aspects of her speech.
In her speech, she said the girl was in sixth grade and sent it to her eighth grade son (I only remember because I took notes!), which would make the girl 10 or 11.
ReplyDeleteSome of her humor was well-placed, but I also found some of it off-putting. Her comment about Nancy Pelosi looking bad in running shorts was just a low blow--she could've made her point just as easily without resorting to that.
--The Sheriff
Hmm...in my notes I have it down as her son in sixth grade and the girl in eighth grade, which is why I thought she was about 13...oh well, whatever. Sorry you got cut off, but I can't remember which person you were because I don't think you were the only one to be stopped in the middle.
ReplyDeleteOh no, definitely not. But I think it reflected poorly on her that she did it to so many people. Obviously, Smith is a pretty hostile environment for a speaker like her, but everyone behaved themselves pretty well (aside from one person who interrupted her for a change), so I think she a little too defensive personally.
ReplyDelete