whatever happened to female solidarity?

[foreverastudent]

I may stand to be corrected but I get the impression that feminism/feminists in the 1970s were more cohesive than today.

People within the women's liberation movement (and women in general)appeared to be largely in agreement over the big issues of the day eg equal pay, equal education, ending of domestic vilence etc.

Looking at feminism/feminists/women now we, as a group, seem to be much more disparate. Did patriarchy 'divide and conquer'?

Sometimes I get when I have a conversation with an intelligent, but not self-defining as 'feminist', woman when they say things that I must be naive to assume most women agree on eg 'it's not a woman's fault she is low paid' or 'the state should help women who've been raped/abused'.

So, is a hope that we can return to (or originate) a spirit of female solidarity a pipe dream or something we should be actively working towards?

There's never been such a thing as female solidarity, not even back in the '70's. [auld gimmer emoticon]

And if you think about it, achieving "female solidarity" would mean that we'd all have to agree on everything, all of the time; and, quite simply, we don't.

Be rather Stepford-ish if we did, I reckon.

I think patriarchy is having a go at 'divide and conquer'.

I say that because I think the 'empowerfulizing sex positive' brand of feminism is harmful to women and the women's movement.

I don't know exactly how this particular brand of feminism came about, but one thing is sure - the patriarchy is rubbing its hands in glee at the opportunity to divide and create doubt in the minds of women.

It never existed.

In A Vindication for the Rights of Women Mary Wollstonecraft said 'the first thing women have to change is women themselves.' Can't see much progress with that to be honest. Individual women maybe, but not en masse.

Lol at sisterhood in the 70's. Err no. I was there.
It is a nice romantic construct. London wasn't really swinging in the 60s either. Well Hornsey wasn't....

'there is no such thing as the sisterhood' was one of the first things I remember my mum telling me in the 70s. With anger and disappointment. Sadly I have to agree. I have always found working with groups of men much more efficient and productive than groups of women who are - BIG GENERALISATION ALERT - more divisive. OF course I have lovely supportive friends who are not representative of this but I do find women to be their own worst enemies. Just look at some of the rows about each other's choices on MN. My sisterhood is very personal and small. It's not something I have seen in action outside small circles of friends. Even at the sodding PTA meeting last night the subtle undermining of suggestions was in evidence. Thank goodness my husband was there to look after me.

I bet it never existed. God, back then people were still debating over whether women and men should be paid equally for the same work, was rape within marriage even possible etc etc. I think this is just another version of the "Back in the day when women were women" myth TBH, used to hit feminists of today.

I always hear the "where is the sisterhood?" line used to slag off women for disagreeing (about anything) for example. FGS we're not automatons, we're just as likely to disagree with each other as men are.

No such thing as female solidarity nor male solidarity for that matter as we are all different and our views reflect that. People will group together with common views but they will always have their own feelings on such matters meaning there will be differences even where there are similarities.

Looking at history the biggest opposition to feminism was not men as such but other women.

I don't agree that groups of women argue more than groups of men (how ironic :o). Ever watched parliament in progress? Wasn't women who invented that ridiculous format.

Agree - not sure why there was supposed to BE 'a sisterhood'. Unless in Stepford or amongst the wives of weird cult leaders. Even women who wouldn't describe themselves as 'feminist' usually are when you talk about justice. But we shouldn't look to a golden age of all being bound by one common cause. It wasn't and won't be like that.

Saltatrix - I really don't think that's true. It's just that the women who opposed it were known for being, er, women who opposed it. The men who opposed it were known as The Police, Parliament, The Media, etc.

Nowadays you see that the MPs who take up feminist (but perfectly uncontroversial one would think) causes like inquiries into mishandling of rape cases, child welfare, carers allowances etc are almost all women. I've got no reason to think that men have been more pro-feminist than women have been on the whole. In fact, that's pretty ludicrous.

Hi Elephants - love your name - I don't think women argue more than men but I have seen women undermine each other in a certain way. I wish women argued more in real life. Most I know, with exceptions, wait until after the event and then snipe about whatever. Men argue all the time. It's the nature of the argument and the ability to divorce the topic from perceived personal slights that can make the difference. In my experience which clearly isn't going to be everyone's.

Thanks Kitty :) I've read some interesting stuff somewhere about girls being stopped from arguing/fighting etc much sooner than boys are . Going right back to Wollstonecraft she argues that women are taught to be sly and crafty and not say what they think, purely because they are not the ones in power. Being taught to wheedle and persuade things out of their husband, as their boss, rather than just get them themselves or ask frankly.

Was just about to say something along the lines of Elephant's last post.

Of course women disagree. I do think, however, that some of the undermining/passive whilst competitive behaviour that some women engage in, is heavily influenced by what is considered feminine/acceptable for a woman.

To a degree we all have to resort to 'do what you have to do to survive in the patriarchy' techniques - often to the detriment of sisterhood.

When I started this thread I had in mind this:

"The Seven Demands as finalised at the National Women?s Liberation Conference held in Birmingham in 1978.

The women's liberation movement asserts a woman's right to define her own sexuality, and demands:

Equal pay for equal work
Equal education and job oportunities
Free contraception
Free 24-hour community-controlled childcare
Legal and financial independence for women
An end to discrimination against lesbians
Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of male violence. An end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and men's agression towards women "

and was thinking that I dont think feminists, let alone women could so easily agree on a modern set of demands.

well I think we could mainly still agree to all of those.

In most cases those demands have not been met.

Do you think there is male solidarity? Really? They have been slaughtering each other in pitched battles for millenia (which is slightly more serious than SAHM/WOHM debates or whatever), but it doesn't seem to have done male power any harm

Elephants - "I've read some interesting stuff somewhere about girls being stopped from arguing/fighting etc much sooner than boys are .'

Equality illusion, read it last night.

I agree with people who have posted before, I wasn't around then but have heard a good few tales and it wasn't all unified.

Foreverastudent'When I started this thread I had in mind this:

"The Seven Demands as finalised at the National Women?s Liberation Conference held in Birmingham in 1978.'

Sure if you have a conference you might produce some aims at the end of it, but it doesn't mean there isn't dissent. When looking back at history this just masks dissent as its good to look at neat little things like this, whereas to access knowledge on the complexity of dissent is really hard. It doesn't get recorded in the same way. But single messages like that need deconstructing to really understand what happened. The Labour Party will come away from the conference they are having at the moment with lots of things that have been agreed, but that doesn't mean there isn't dissent.

In some ways I think current feminism is lacking in dissent and too congruent. There seems to be too much agreeing rather than pushing to the boundaries, but that is fair enough considering it is finding its feet again at the moment.

KittyFolye 'Men argue all the time. It's the nature of the argument and the ability to divorce the topic from perceived personal slights that can make the difference.'

I'd say because that way of arguing, being 'logical', 'rational' and 'neutral' has historically been favoured over other ways of arguing, or perhaps discussing. Its just a way of framing argument so it appears this way, in reality no more 'neutral' and 'rational' than personal experience, the personal experience is hidden. Neutrality is impossible, we all come with baggage and react accordingly, even if we mask it.

In some ways I think current feminism is lacking in dissent and too congruent.

Just look at this board for proof of that. anyboy with a dissenting view from the Mysandric Cabal is bullied. And I am not just talking about males, there is a great example in the cognitive dissonance thread about a lady who had a different view, who got hounded and hounded, until she just gave up even trying to get her message across as it was just getting drowned out by the bullies.

I'm talking about within the feminist movement itself. I'm not talking about people from the outside 'critiquing' feminism with old arguments that have been discussed a thousand times before. I am not familiar with exactly the poster you are referring to as I only give that thread a cursory glance as it seem to me to include lots of posts from people who could do with reading a feminism 101. I've had enough of that on the thread I do read everything on. Of course this may not be the case with the poster you are referring to, but I do not want my comment to be twisted to justify what I see on that thread.

The feminist board is a bullying clique.Shrill,and quick to attack and call others names.I lurk but do not post,after I saw some of the goings on :( . Accusations of being a Derailer, What about the menz, and anti-feminist really put me off.I do not know if there ever has been female solidarity, but there is no need for such unpleasantness.

PS My recent post relates to my words that have been quoted selectively, but without source.

'In some ways I think current feminism is lacking in dissent and too congruent.'

Apologies I didn't make that clear straight away.

NiceShoes - how is the written word 'shrill'? I associate that with a sound.