Contemporary studies of political discourse in twentieth-century Germany commonly focus on the actions of the Nazi Party and the genocide of the Holocaust as a central reference point for analysis. During the 1970s and 1980s, new studies and publications introduced alternative criteria and perspectives for examining the social and political precipitations that created such a viable landscape for a fascist takeover. Following American feminist Claudia Koonz’s publication of Mothers in the Fatherland in 1986, the debate intensified and became centralized around the role that women played in the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis’ rise to power. Koonz examination of female involvement challenged the cultural feminist notions of victimization in the female experience in the far Right. As noted by Koonz among others, a distinct paradox arises when studying German women’s relation to far-Right politics regarding the contradictory nature of feminist ideologies and the decidedly antifeminist ideologies of the parties and organizations which they supported (Harvey, 152). However, Koonz’s findings were quickly challenged by women’s historians, specifically Gisela Bock, based on what they perceived as conceptual shortcomings in Koonz analysis.

            The resulting ideological volley of criticism and counter-criticism has since occupied the debate on feminism in Nazi Germany, and furthermore created new conceptual tools for gender studies at large. However, this complex debate is still unresolved in terms of providing a singular and definitive explanation for the female role in the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany. Because the debate is layered with a vast and interconnected “ensemble” of Nazi values, conflicting theoretical assumptions, and a uniquely volatile social and political context, an examination of this debate requires a nuanced analysis of all facets of feminism in the National Socialist movement, and most importantly, one that carefully avoids generalizations (Leck, 162). And while this essay is also incapable of providing a singular answer for the role of women in Nazi Germany, it will attempt to rationalize feminist action that is seemingly self-detrimental. In addition, it will illustrate the transformation of gender studies in Nazi Germany away from the victim/ perpetrator dichotomy, and toward an examination of the contributing factors to the patriarchal society, as it is manifest in the Koonz-Bock debate. The question is no longer how to label women’s role in Nazi Germany, but rather as Elizabeth Harvey articulates, “What drew women to radical political ideologies and movements that were chauvinistically nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, and typically antifeminist” (Harvey, 152).

            The foundation for feminist participation in Nazi Germany, and subsequently the debate therein, began with the early twentieth century movements for women’s suffrage and political activism. Following significant electoral losses in the 1912 election, the Deutsch-Konservative Partei (DKP) allowed the formation of the Union of Conservative Women in April 1913. However, as Harvey points out, “Its purpose was not so much to give conservative women a voice in the party as to spread conservative ideas among women and to mobilize them as a resource” (Harvey, 155). The designation of German women as a “resource” illustrates a notion of self-interested motivation on the part of the patriarchal conservative parties. While the German women embraced motherly roles as “guardians of the German home and German values,” right-wing men simply “tolerated women’s associations that formed as auxiliaries to nationalist pressure groups in order to raise funds and support policies such as naval expansion, colonial policy, or anti-Polish campaigning” (Harvey, 154). And while there was a largely manipulative context to these “auxiliary” relationships, the feminist movement undoubtedly succeeded in increasing participation by women in the political process. By the spring of 1918, German women accounted for one-third of the Fatherland Party’s individual membership, and following the German defeat in November 1918, female participation eclipsed 80% voter turnout in the January 1919 elections (Harvey, 155). At this point, a series of unexpected and somewhat ironic events occurred within the feminist movement, which shifted it in a direction that was fundamentally antifeminist.

            The years following World War I and the fall of the German Empire were a critical, yet uncertain time in German politics, and many right-wing groups capitalized on the many perceived threats by espousing more radicalized policies that took root in the highly revolutionary era. The far-Right became concentrated in the Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP), and rallied around “its hostility to democracy, its ultra-nationalism, and its strong streak of völkish (racist) thinking” (Harvey, 154). During the Weimar Republic, the Bund Deutsche Frauenvereine (BDF) “was overwhelmingly allied with political conservatives and/ or economic liberals,” including the DNVP. And while prior to the collapse they had never overtly claimed radical policies so closely tied to antifeminism, “German women’s organizations did fortify patriarchy through their support for conservative political parties” (Leck, 151). The genesis of German female organizations out of parties such as the DKP and DNVP forged a fundamental connection to the patriarchal system, and as Koonz and women’s historian Ralph Leck would agree, it created a common discourse that would result in “complimentariness” between Nazism and German cultural feminism (Leck, 152). In utter contradiction of traditional feminist ideology, “women flocked to support the conservative or more radical right-wing parties, whose composition and traditions reflected the forces that historically had done less to encourage women in politics” (Harvey, 156). In 1921, German women accounted for 54% of DNVP members in Danzing, and 43% of the DNVP membership in Hamburg (Harvey, 156). In addition, the DNVP received disproportionate support from women in several constituencies where men’s and women’s votes were counted separately (Harvey, 156). This research, paired with similar statistical support for the Nazis, undermines Bock’s assertion that German women were “particularly resistant to National Socialism” (Leck, 149). Therefore, the next logical step is determining which ideologies drew women toward the increasingly illiberal and antifeminist parties and organizations at the far-Right in Germany, and why.

            In the period after the German defeat in 1918, right-wing women became increasingly committed to “feminine” roles in the ultranationalist agenda of the far-Right conservative parties. They embraced their duty to protect the German nation and German biological heritage, which was defined as a Volksgemeinschaft (national community) that was culturally homogenous and uncontaminated by “alien blood” (Harvey, 158). Several feminist organizations, including Guida Diehl’s Neuland movement and the Queen Luise League, adopted this ideology, which more specifically “advocated as an alternative to democracy the racially based ‘national community’ in which membership was based on the ‘quality’ of one’s German heritage rather than liberal notions of equal citizenship” (Harvey, 158). All at once, German women practiced their feminist duties as “guardians of the race” and “carriers of the blood” tasked with “[strengthening] racial boundaries, [curbing] the reproduction of the ‘inferior,’ and [promoting] the breeding of pure ‘Aryans’” (Harvey, 159). These roles and responsibilities specifically combined nationalist and racist ideology with a flair for feminism manifest in the very literal, biological integrity German women were expected to protect. With such limited political influence, it is very likely that women embraced the National Socialist movement because they acknowledged this tangible and ultimately necessary role in procreation, which was paramount to the Nazi campaign for cultural supremacy. Additionally, the domesticated nature of their “womanly” capacities played into the “paranoid style of far-right women, who, like male demagogues, generate an ever-expanding list of enemies” (Blee, 216).

Claudia Koonz identified another common discourse between Nazism and German women’s movements in the campaign for Lebensraum (living space), which also satisfied the criteria of a male/ female binary that identified “mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting spheres of patriarchy” (Leck, 150). The issue of providing adequate living space for the entire population of German peoples had existed long before the twentieth century, however the context of Lebensraum in the years leading up to the Nazi takeover enhanced the depiction of a feminine role in the patriarchy of Nazi society. Women’s display of support for Lebensraum was largely manifest in the policies of the thriving women’s organizations of the time, many of them constituents of the BDF. Groups like the Bund Deutscher Hausfrauen (Union of German Housewives, BDH) praised stay-at-home motherhood and viewed Lebensraum as “a celebration of the political role of the domestic sphere” (Leck, 152). For the male Nazi leadership, however, Lebensraum reinforced their increasingly radicalized ideology, and represented “the conceptual centerpiece of a racist plan for imperialist expansion” (Leck, 152). The key characteristic of Lebensraum for Koonz’s and Leck’s analysis of patriarchy in Nazi Germany concerns the presence of a dynamic male/ female binary, which serves the interests of both men and women alike. Leck suggests that Lebensraum represents Nazi patriarchy as “a common discursive regime with sexually differentiated but mutually reinforcing political meanings” (Leck, 152). Once again, this analysis is incompatible with Bock’s victimization theory, because it addresses the empowerment of women’s organizations inherent in their participation in the ideology of motherhood and its connection to Nazi politics of cultural superiority. Taking these developments into account, it is reasonable to abandon an analysis within the confines of a victim/ perpetrator dichotomy. However, this does not completely remove questions of culpability from the analysis, rather it removes many of the limitations present in the original Koonz-Bock debate. In the place of the victimization theory, a thorough examination of Nazi policy and the constructs of patriarchal society will hopefully refine and focus the contextual definition of antifeminism within Nazi Germany.

            Leck addresses the logical fallacy inherent with German female activism in the far-Right by asserting in non-sequitur fashion that “(1) Nazism is antifeminist, and (2) Nazism is a continuation of the mainstream German women’s movement, a movement most historians identify as feminist” (Leck, 151). Leck stresses the importance of defining German feminism and Nazi antifeminism in order to expand and derive some greater logic from the contradictory nature of the relationship between the two. The first complication arises from the lack of a universally-accepted criterion for identifying antifeminism and antifeminist actions. Leck notes, “Historians often use the term [antifeminism] vaguely to maintain that Nazi patriarchy was injurious to women. The implication is that women could not have benefitted from and did not support Nazism” (Leck, 154). The latter assumptions can be already be dismissed due to the fact that Leck already identified German women as both supporters and beneficiaries of Nazism in various capacities. Leck’s discontentment with such a limited, insufficient, and subjective assessment of German antifeminism reiterates the problems that vague generalizations create in such a complex situation of overlapping movements and ideologies. Leck suggests, “The designation of Nazi social policy as antifeminist is particularly problematic because it equates illiberalism, antimodernism, and patriarchy with antiwoman policies” (Leck, 154). Leck also addresses the implications of an antifeminist label in Nazi culture upon the seemingly feminist German women’s organizations and movements of the early twentieth century. “To apply the term antifeminst to Nazi culture allows one to ignore strong continuities between pre-1933 mainstream German women’s organizations and the sexual politics of the Nazis” (Leck, 154). As Leck points out, the feminist misidentification works both ways. He cites historian Nancy Reagin’s refusal to recognize the BDF (arguably the most significant women’s organization in the Weimar years) as a “feminist” organization because it “rejected political equality for all women” (Leck, 161). To clarify the distinction between antifeminism and the ideologies at the core of the Nazi Party, it is easiest to look toward enacted Nazi policies that directly affected women and were seemingly characterized by gender and sexism.

            The Nazi Party’s rapid radicalization and rise to power in the 1930s brought with it a collection of extremist policies, which violated various human rights. One of the more oppressive and foreboding set of laws was the Nazi antinatal policy, which mandated compulsory sterilization and abortion. Because the nature of this policy targeted women specifically, some historians, including Bock, perceive this as an overt act of sexism. While Bock acknowledged the importance of racist ideology in this policy as well, her focus on gender divisions and misogyny in her analysis reiterates her dedication to the image of female victimization. However, Koonz challenged Bock’s approach with evidence of a sharp increase in the birthrate after 1933. Koonz corrected, “In reality, the official portrayal of racial and genetic ‘Minderwertigen’ [less worthy ones] were, in the propaganda of race politics, gender neutral” (Leck, 150). Once again, this reinforces the polarized opposition of male and female spheres at the forefront of Bock’s analysis in contrast to Koonz’s mutually reinforcing male and female binary. Policies of sexual privilege in the German colonies also illustrated right-wing concepts of cultural superiority through the application of fundamentally illogical and contradictory notions, which elevated the German national community. German colonists disregarded the sacred mandates of racial separation in order to exercise their colonial prerogative of sexual access to African women (Blee, 219). In order to circumvent the laws of racial purity, the various colonies instituted their own amendments to these rules, which would ultimately permit interracial concubinage, casual sex, and prostitution between German men and African women (Blee, 219). These laws are significant because they depict one instance in which misogyny and antifeminism clearly take precedent over the racist ideologies at the core of the German far-Right establishment. Not only did these laws compromise the integrity of the racist ideology, but they also asserted male authority over women in completely different classifications of race, status, and class. Because this policy affected women both inside and outside the racially-pure German population, it carried a more universal brand of female oppression that is undoubtedly identifiable as antifeminist.

            As mentioned, women successfully integrated themselves into active roles in German politics, however they remained hesitant to challenge the patriarchal constructs of Germany society. “[Right-wing] women shared liberal feminists’ desire to accentuate female influence in society, but renounced any more emphatic insistence on women’s rights” (Harvey, 155). Harvey described their actions as “asserting themselves unassertively.” The formation of women’s organizations and their integration into the periphery of the political system of German men was certainly empowering, however these female activists never sought to challenge the obvious inequality between the spheres of men and women. “Right-wing activism in the 1920s gave some women an opportunity to exercise their political muscle without threatening traditional notions of gender roles” (Blee, 217). These self-imposed limitations paired with disputes between feminist groups concerning the pursuit of egalitarian rights created a decentralized and seemingly unmotivated foundation for the feminist movement going forward. During the Weimar years, the feminist movement shifted its focus away from women’s rights and instead adopted the ultranationalist ideologies of the German far-Right. Blee and Leck both discuss the conceptual multiplicity common in the political ideologies of conservative movements, which helps to explain how German women quickly found themselves in support of extremist ideologies in the Nazi movement. Leck describes it as the “Nazi Matrix,” which defines the Nazi ideology as an ensemble of wide-ranging values in hopes of fostering mass appeal. Leck said, “Nazi ideology was not an objective ideology that possessed a universal meaning for all Germans. It was a form that could be filled with various subjective contents” (Leck, 163). Such was the case with German women asserting their roles in the protection of racial purity as well as German and Protestant values. As the conservative landscape became more and more extremist with the rise of the Nazi regime, German women followed and likewise identified with increasingly extremist ideologies. Blee described this shift writing, “In the 1920s, conservative forces targeted various fronts – sexual, gender, economic, political – in their battle to defend traditional society, believing that changing any one structure of society would lead to a transformation of them all” (Blee, 217). This perceived threat of a domino effect closely linked the wide-ranging issues, “[making] it possible for women to slide from anti-women’s suffrage to anti-radicalism” (Blee, 217). Because the first women’s organizations were formed out of the very patriarchal traditions of conservative German groups, German women grew to foster the same ethnocentric beliefs as the Nazi Party, however they were very distinct variants. While German women defined their conservative beliefs in more traditional terms, the Nazis transformed nationalist ideas that historically aimed for unification and stability and applied radical separatist notions of hate and racism. Where the BDF practiced doctrinal ethnocentrism, the Nazis practiced racial ethnocentrism; where the BDF practiced religious Anti-Semitism, the Nazis practiced racial Anti-Semitism (Leck, 156). While these differences provided the female activists in the BDF a unique identity within the far-Right temporarily, they were eventually swept up and marginalized in the Nazi takeover like the rest of the political organizations, becoming the perceived threats to a National Socialist Germany themselves. As Leck articulates, “German women’s affirmation of Nazi patriarchy… was the embrace of ethnocentric cultural identities that empowered women by exalting their social status as mothers, Germans, and Christians” (Leck, 164).

Ideologically, the victim of Nazi tyranny can only be identified as those not meeting the criteria of the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, which constituted “uncontaminated,” white German Protestants. While certain civil rights were undoubtedly violated based on gender and sexism over the course of Nazi rule, the manipulation and marginalization of women was simply the product of the highly radicalized patriarchal structure. And while labeling the National Socialist movement as antifeminist is far from an absolute falsehood, it is a major oversimplification and generalization that fails to account for the extremely unique political and social landscape, which could be characterized as a perfect storm of overlapping extremist ideologies. Leck articulates this conclusion best saying, “Nazi ideology was a potent mixture of various identities and policies combining, like a chemical reaction, to create a toxic elixir authorizing racial anti-Semitism and the Holocaust” (Leck, 163).

Works Cited

Blee, Kathleen M. “Troubling Women’s History: Women in Right-Wing and Colonial Politics.” Journal of Women’s History 15.2 (2003): 214-21.

Harvey, Elizabeth. “Visions of the Volk : German Women and the Far Right from Kaiserreich to Third Reich.” Journal of Women’s History 16.3 (2004): 152-67.

Leck, Ralph. “Conservative Empowerment and the Gender of Nazism: Paradigms of Power and Complicity in German Women’s History.” Journal of Women’s History 12.2 (2000): 147-69

What are the real differences between the sexes and why do they exist?  You may snigger but once you move past the obvious and give the matter some serious thought non genital differences start to pop up such as how attitudes towards sex and porn differ and why women always seem to want to lose weight while men aspire to have muscles that rival Arnold Schwarzenegger in his heyday.

Women seem to try and occupy as little space as possible, are generally much more timid than men when in public situations, and are I have noticed, much more apologetic.

Men on the other hand, dominate as much space as they can, are not intimidated by others in the way a lot of women are, nor do they show the same consideration or sensitivity to other people that women on the whole tend to display.

Women always wish themselves to be smaller than they are no matter how diminished in size they might already be, whereas men are forever seeking to increase their size, to be bigger, larger than life, perhaps that they might be able to take up even more space than they already inhabit.

The most marked difference, to me at least,  is how the majority of men seem somehow remarkably immune to what other people think of them, whereas women are forever preoccupied with others perceptions so much that at times they are in danger of doing themselves a massive disservice.

Another thing which to my interest I have observed is how preoccupied women are with how they are perceived by others, particularly in a visual sense.

This is of course most likely a natural reaction to the fact that women are judged first and foremost by their appearance, by how they look, and although to some degree every human being regardless of gender is evaluated at least partially based on how they appear, for men nothing like the same importance is levied, so of course they are in the main not so concerned with such matters.

An interesting aberration from this can be observed in gay male culture where the same pre-occupation with visual appearance that women display can be found.

Perhaps this does give some credence to the theory that men are primarily visual creatures when it comes to attraction, hence in a heterosexual culture the predominance of importance of a woman’s visual appearance, and thus in gay male culture where the object of man’s lust is his fellow man the same importance is meted out to visual attractiveness.

Is this though truly and solely due to the innate nature of man or could it at least in part be owing to how society conditions us, brainwashes us, nurturing our infantile minds into being?

Could it be that in a non-patriarchal society the sexes would actually place equal importance on visual attraction?  After all women have an equal capacity to appreciate beauty as men do, an equal propensity for seeking sexual desire, if not quite as much preoccupation or obsession with it.

This naturally brings me on to the subject of pornography.  The traditional view holds that women do not enjoy nor seek out pornographic material and indeed while research has been carried out which shows that men are still the main consumers of porn it’s doesn’t take a genius to work out that straight women don’t have a whole lot to get excited about when it comes to the world of mainstream porn which lets face it is mostly male orientated erotica.

And after all, if you are told constantly that something is for members of the boys club and you are not a member of that club, naturally you are going to feel pretty uncomfortable about pursuing it, even if you are not consciously aware of it.  On a subconscious level the message is clear, “This is not for you” as Pearl Jam attested.

The majority of porn is not geared towards pressing heterosexual women erotic hot buttons but instead concentrates on catering to straight men’s predilections.  The problem is a straight woman is unlikely to be optimally aroused by pornography which primarily eroticises the female body from a male perspective and in a lot of cases blatantly objectifies and degrades that body.

I mean a heterosexual man is not usually going be ideally eroticised by pornography with an erotic focus on the masculine so why should it be assumed that all women are capable of identifying with the feminine when watching pornography?

And why on earth would a straight woman want to watch other women getting screwed from a man’s point of view?  She hasn’t got a dick for a start, she’s going to be coming from a different perspective, and the likelihood is she’s not going to have the same erotic switches.

The general lazy attitude that thinks that if women want to watch porn they should just ask their boyfriend to chuck on a DVD from his stash is based on the fact that women have always been regarded as more sexually fluid than men but is this not just saying that their sexuality and sexual preferences don’t really matter?

Lesbianism is more generally acceptable at least on the surface by our mainstream society not just because of the complete obsession that some heterosexual guys seem to have with it but also because it is thought that if two women rub pussies together they are not harming anyone because anyone without a dick doesn’t really count.   

Leave it to the gay men to carry the can for wasting their seed and potentially threatening the stability and continuity of our society.  It doesn’t matter what women want, at the end of the day if need be they can be turned and they can still be penetrated and impregnated.

It’s truly sad but it really seems a fully sexual woman with her own pecadilloes and sexual predilections fully catered for instead of an objectified, sanitised, idealised, but ultimately voiceless female that is the fantasy creature of most heterosexual male orientated porn, would pose far too much of a threat to the patriarchal status quo.

Russell Campbell’s book is probably the first– certainly the most up-to-date – to offer an overview of New Zealand documentaries, both those that were made as feature films and those that appeared on television.  It comprises a collection of disparate essays that Campbell has written on the subject  over a twenty-five year period.  Curiously he’s chosen in only a couple of instances to update them, with the result that comments made in one essay are often repeated in another.   This irritated me a little, since a small amount of editing would have given the book less of a feeling that Campbell had just gone through his relevant writings and thrown them all together.   The book also seems to lack a critical overview, which is odd since it’s come from Victoria University Press.  The preface only tells us that the book ‘’makes no claim to comprehensiveness and does not constitute a history of New Zealand documentary.’  The summary at the end merely repeats what’s already been written in the bulk of the book.

 Nevertheless, all the essays open our eyes to the riches inherent in the documentary scene, and to the huge and often unsung talents behind the making of these films.   It’s possible to view a number of these films online – something that would greatly benefit an enthusiastic reader.

 After an introductory essay which shows the breadth of documentary subject matter, Campbell lays the book out in three sections: Workers and Stirrers, State of the Nation and Kiwi Culture.  The first includes an essay on Cecil Holmes, an innovative filmmaker from the National Film Unit, someone most of us won’t have heard of.   This is followed by discussions of documentaries on internal strife: Bastion Point, strikes, protests, feminism.    The second section looks at both political and social themes, especially those that try to offer a view of New Zealand’s history.   The essays in these section are well-written, full of detail and mindful of the times in which the films were made.

Lastly, Campbell looks at documentaries focused on Kiwi culture: artists, poets, musicians and kiwiana.   The quality of these essays varies: the one on the poets is excellent in detailing how the poets and their poems are treated visually but the one on musicians centres mostly on popular music, and is more of an overview of that scene from its earliest days rather than an overview of the documentaries about the music themselves. 

It’s obvious that Campbell has spent many hours watching the innumerable documentaries he discusses (there’s an extensive list provided at the back of the book) and as a filmmaker himself he’s very capable in noting not just how the subject matter is treated but the way in which the filmmakers use various techniques to slant the viewers’ understanding.   The book certainly whets the appetite for wanting to actually see some of these movies.   I feel, however, that this is something of a preliminary approach to the topic: Campbell obviously has the knowledge to write a fullscale history of the subject matter.  It’s to be hoped he’ll have the time to turn his attention to such a work.     

  In fact it’s always a sign of our times and culture that fashion is considered frivolity, and perhaps now it often is, but it wasn’t always so. In fact it’s a relatively recent re-institution. The twentieth century was a revolution in how we made up our faces and why.

  Feminists often argue that a women’s attempt to promote or enhance her appearance, make her complicit in her own oppression. But where’s the fun in that? Cancelling Christmas did nothing for Oliver Cromwell’s approval ratings. The argument is that women be taken seriously, but enjoying your paint box and having something to say that should be valued, are not mutually exclusive concepts. My argument is that women should have the right to choose for themselves and this spans the breadth of many questions of prescription for women, be it for a housewife or career woman, or mother or the “child-free”. There are always arguments about oppression, not without great weight and absolute credibility, but my feminism involves no proscription from anyone, which is often the final straw for the relationships between different generations of feminists.

  In 1912, 20,000 American suffragettes marched in aid of a woman’s right to vote. In the Edwardian era, there were still strong echoes of Queen Victoria’s mandate that there was just something immoral about make-up. Lipstick didn’t exist as we know it today because make-up was the property of prostitutes and theatre people, both of these occupations being frowned upon as improper. Still, the women wore bright red lip paint as a symbol of their right to make choices for themselves. A very literal interpretation of “read my lips”, leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Charlotte Perkins Gilman (whose story “The Yellow Wallpaper” still gives me chills) were advocates of lip rouge as a symbol of women’s emancipation.

  By the 1920s, those considered “non-conformists” were the flapper girls with their boyish ways and new use of make-up in general. By this point, the old, established, prim views were on the wane in the face of the juggernaut of a movement by artists such as Elizabeth Arden and Helena Rubenstein. Make-up was for any woman that wanted to wear it.

  I’m so fascinated by the history of fashion and make-up because it is always surprising, given what we take for granted, how complicated it all really is, with arguments both for and against fashion as oppression. I think that as long as a woman is confident in her choices as being her own creative opportunities, where’s the harm in a little war paint?

  For more informed arguments, I recommend the book, “Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism” by Linda M. Scott. Also for practical as well as historical information, there’s Lauren Rennells wonderful book, “Retro Makeup”.

Her aspirations were were considered, “unwomanly”. Sarah’s mother was a leader of the Charleston’s Ladies Benevolent Society. She gave time to women who were incarecrated in prison, and also people who were poor in their community. However nice it sounds of Sarah’s mother, Sarah’s mother would neglect Sarah, because she could  not be considered with “child’s concerned” and paid more attention to Sarah’s brother.

Sarah began to teach Bible classes to the young slaves that were on her father’s plantation, but found the experience to be frustrating. Her parents did not want the slaves to learn how to read because they thought it would make them rebel against them. They also believed if they were worked so hard with studying, they wouldn’t fill physically able to do physical labor later on. In 1740, teaching slaves to read was against the law. This didn’t stop Sarah from teaching her “personal slave” to read, in private. However, her father discovered this happening and was beyond angry. He had almost had the young girl (the slave) whipped, but Sarah decided to never try to teach slaves to read again. Not because she was frustrated with her efforts, but because she didn’t want them to be harmed.

In 1868, Sarah found out about three nephews that her older brother had by his personal slave. She embraced them, welcomly. She even worked to provide money to educate Arhicbald and Francis Grimké. Sarah’s sister, Angelina, and her may have been raised by a plantantion owner, but that didn’t stop them from hating the idea of slavery. They joined the American Anti-Slavery Society and eventually, started doing speeches and such, even about feminism, not just abolitionism. In 1838, Sarah’s sister married Theodore Weld. Theodore Weld basically told Sarah that she was a poor speaker and that he thought she was damaging the cause, not helping it. Though, this may be unlikely, considering Sarah was requested for many public speeches through the years.

As far as pornography goes, women sign up for their career. Nobody forces them into the career or lifestyle. If they wanted to quit, they easily could (and there are plenty that have). Another thing is, men are also in porn. So, is it actually sexist to say that women is only degrading to women? Is it not degrading to men as well? Are women the only people capable of being degraded? If so, as a women, I feel this implies that women are weak.

On the other hand, it has and does contribute to the “picture perfect” idea that a lot of males have of women and vice versa. Women are supposed to be blond bombshells and men are supposed to be beefed up. In reality, women do not look like this without thousands of procedures (that a career in pornography more than likely paid for). So, again, I ask you, is pornography degrading to women? Is it degrading to men? Could it be neither? Could it be that these people simply just wanted this job and lifestyle?

Image by Janelinha via Flickr

     Despite the fact we are living in the twenty-first century, many women still struggle to be valued intrinsically by the opposite sex. Women are not at fault in these circumstances. There is large percentage of men who still find it appropriate to discredit women’s thoughts and opinions, value women solely for their physical appearance, and view women as less than their equal. This is morally deplorable, but cannot be changed overnight. This will continue to be an ongoing fundamental problem with society, but there are a few things you can do to better your situation.

•  Look at men the right way. There is a serious vibe you can put out by using certain facial expressions. Look at men straight in the eye. This doesn’t mean gaze into their eyes (that could give the wrong impression.)  If the man’s gaze travels to inappropriate areas of your body, redirect them by pretending to clear your throat and having a very serious look on your face. They should not be allowed to undress you with their eyes. Try making the expression you would have if you were asked a question about something you definitely know the answer to.
• Maintain good body language. Your posture should be straight. If you agree with something the person you are speaking to is saying, lean in toward them. If you disagree, lean away from them. Leaning should only be slight in distance. You don’t want the person to think you are trying to dance with them. These cues will be picked up subconsciously, and the person will know that you have thoughtful judgment skills.
• Do not become intimidated. If you have strong abilities in an area, let it be known. Answer open ended questions, and use qualifiers to back up your statements. Don’t be afraid to correct a man’s mistake or wrong answer. Your knowledge is just as valuable as theirs.
• Monitor your voice inflections. Speak clearly with steady pitch. When you speak clearly with a reasonable volume, people tend to listen more often. They also are more apt to believe what you are saying because you sound confident. Try to keep your pitch steady. Hav
  ng a voice that is too high-pitched taps into the part of a man’s brain meant for finding a mate. If you change your pitch to be lower than your normal voice, it sounds bizarre.
• Utilize tit for tat. Be assertive when interacting with men. If they listen to what you are saying, listen to them in return. If they ignore you, give them the cold shoulder. Make it clear that you know you are their equal, and they are more likely to believe it as well.
• Realize that not all men are misogynists. Most men are only slightly sexist if at all. They may not even realize that they are sexist because their prejudices lie in their subconscious. These prejudices are often transmitted by culture, the media, and from family members. To combat subconscious prejudices, you must use subconscious cues such as these. If you start to realize that the man you are speaking to is sexist, don’t confront him about it until later. Try to prove how worthy you are first.

Women have equal abilities to men in issues of logic, reasoning, and intelligence. People who say otherwise or who use pseudo-scientific studies to try and prove otherwise are simply wrong. Studies have proven women are equally or in some cases better at these subjects than men. Companies are becoming more interested in women supervisors over their male counterparts because they are usually better at multi-tasking. Be proud of being a woman and be proud of your accomplishments. Good luck and remember to never sell yourself short.

1.       All feminists are wrong.

2.       All feminists are right.

Let me explain myself.

                I am really tired of women criticizing other women for having a different idea of what it means to be an empowered and liberated woman in today’s society. There are some feminists out there who feel that not bathing or showering or shaving makes them feel liberated and empowered. They feel that these everyday activities are the kinds of things that chain women to pleasing men, and thus subjegates them to male domination. On the other hand, you have women who love to wear lots of make-up, wear tight and low-cut clothing, and flaunt their sexual appeal as a way of dominating men. Both of these groups of women criticize and disagree with the other, and it’s really getting ridiculous.

                Another example are feminist mommies and child-free women. There are women who feel that there is no greater expression of femininity than to have a child, and then there are those who feel that they don’t need to have a child to feel like a woman. These two groups get really viscious with one another. Trust me, I have seen it firsthand.

                One of my closest friends, who I shall call Elizabeth as a means of protecting her identity online, is a young woman who does not want to be a mother. In fact, the thought of motherhood kind of makes her sick. She and I both live in a town that I like to call “The Buckle of the Bible Belt,” a city of about 250,000 people, most of whom are religiously affiliated with either the Baptist, Methodist, or the ever-present Church of Christ. We have 3 4-year universities, each private and each affiliated with one of the 3 major Protestant denominations that rule this town. I currently attend the Methodist-affiliated university, so I haven’t had much issue with people pushing ideas and beliefs on me. Methodists are very subtle in the way they enforce their ideas onto unsuspecting victims, and it usually involves potlucks and raffles. I have a theory that Mormons stole these methods from us Methodist, but that is another story for another day.

                Elizabeth, on the other hand, went to the university affiliated with the Church of Christ, where she was openly ridiculed and, in some cases, osctracized for not wanting to be a mother. She was told that she would not be going to Heaven if she denied God’s will for her to be a mother.

                And for this reason, I ask of you all: is that right? Should it not be a woman’s choice whether she wears make-up or not? Should it not be a woman’s choice, especially in this day and age, whether or not she has children? What place is it of mine to tell Elizabeth that motherhood is the greatest experience of a woman’s life if she doesn’t want to participate? Just because I would like to one day be a mother doesn’t mean that Elizabeth has to hold the same opinion or desire. Similarly, just because I do not feel liberated by wearing make-up or tight clothing doesn’t mean that it doesn’t empower other women who do those things. If a woman wants to refrain from bathing to feel like she has cast aside the shackles of male domination, I’m not going to tell her not to. It’s not something I personally would find enjoyable, but that’s my opinion to have. If a woman feels liberated by having a lot of casual sex, I’m not going to look down on her and call her a whore. I might hand her a boox of condoms and maybe lecture her about safe sex practices, but the choice is hers to make. So long as she isn’t hurting herself emotionally or physically, then I do not see a problem. Not at all.

                So I beseech other feminists to consider these things. I do not want to make this sound like I’m telling people to not use their freedom of speech or expression; I am merely asking that you all do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That doesn’t mean do to everyone else what has been done to you, that just means treat other people the way you would like to be treated, whether you have actually been treated that way or not.

                I’m sure the question at some point has popped into your head while reading this: “What makes you, Becca kat, feel empowered and liberated as a woman?” And here is the answer: At this moment in time, what makes me feel empowered is my thirst for knowledge and my ability to take what I know and transform it into opinions, then to take those opinions and communicate them to other people, not in a way that forces said people to agree with me, but in a way that makes them consider another veiwpoint that is not their own. What makes me feel empowered is the ability to share ideas without trying to persuade anyone to agree with them. Because, as Voltaire said, I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Freedome of speech, expression, and choice: that empowers me.

…bt then…

she dont need to be an ANTI-MAN to be a PRO-WOMAN….

2)   If a grl frm iceland nd a guy frm cuba hv a kid. Will he b an icecube?

3) ‎”I was alone…

I was lost…

I was in the dark.

…bt now u r here for taking me into the light”

4)  Def of A Happy Couple :

..
..
..
..
..

HE does wht SHE wants 
nd 
SHE does wht SHE wants

5)  Grt people d’nt do diffrnt thngs,

But , dy do it diffrntly..!

6) A single person can turn ur day bad

The linked article by Phyllis Schalfly was written in 2011 and outlines what we know today and, it appears, already knew back 50 years ago, that boys raised by there mothers, absent of a father in the home, become  hoodlums.  Pure and simple.  We knew it in ‘61 (and probably before that) and we know it today.  We see it everywhere.  Statistics don’t lie (prison populations prove it) yet we continue to denty it–to our own detriment.  We continue to buy in with the feminist man-haters that a man in the home (and children) is nothing more than the worst form of indentured servitude. 

Yes by all means ladies (OOPS, I made an insult, so sorry), I mean liberated woman of the world, abandon that husband who loves you, and the chilfdren who need you, and get out there in the workforce to work for a boss who doesn’t love you, doesn’t care about you or your problems, might sexually harrass you, and will certainly fire you for not doing your job and replace you the very next day!  Yes I’d that was a great trade-off.  BUT WE’RE DOING IT! WHY, WHY, WHY???  They,  the women are doing it, and WE, the menfolk are allowing it, and what great legacy we’re leaveing for history!?