God, I wish I could agree with Amanda on this one, but I think that might be giving Trudeau too much credit. I mean, he's been friendly to feminist causes in the past and he's a well-known liberal, but the tone of the piece seems a bit dismissive. Perhaps it's wistful in the sense that the baby boom feminist generation is gone and Trudeau feels we're left fighting the remnants of a bygone cause - I don't know. To me, it feels like Trudeau is suggesting the work of feminism is (more or less) over and the rest is just nostalgic passion.

I'm going to have to agree with you Bryan. Sounds like a write-off of modern feminisim to me.

I don't think he's writing off feminism. I think he's writing off certain terminology that he feels may have lost its punch from overuse. Just as "women's lib" became "feminism," I think "feminism" will (and should) eventually give way to another, more powerful term to describe the ongoing fight to keep reminding a male-run world that women are people.

Hmmm... I thought the strip was being sardonic, saying that feminism wasn't really dead, just poking fun at the people who claim that it is.

I'm withholding judgement on this one precisely because Doonesbury is well known for the kind of dry, sardonic, humor that The Countess perceives.

On the other hand, I've started running into more of the attitude that "we just have to wait for all of those old sexist fogies to die off, and then it will no longer be an issue", particularly from the early 20s college crowd, some of whom have attempted to convince me that they're not sexist -- they just don't like women who try to be too much like men. (That's nearly a direct quote.)

So I honestly can't tell what Trudeau thinks, though I'm generally inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Even if the strip was an attempt at sardonic humor, the fact that so many people have been reading it differently suggests that it's already doing more harm than good.

In a way, he's right. The debate is largely over. There are hold outs, to be sure, who will still admit that they think women aren't fully human, but they're rare and getting rarer. But intellectually, this fight is over. The vast majority of Americans accept women's equality and humanity, at least in general terms. What's left is turning that general realization into concrete actions (and inactions). And perhaps that means it's time for new language to describe that movement and objective.

Two words, libdevel:

RACE and CLASS.

All too often left by the wayside in feminist debates...

"Even if the strip was an attempt at sardonic humor, the fact that so many people have been reading it differently suggests that it's already doing more harm than good."

I've seen quite a few comments like this on several topics lately. I read this as saying "it doesn't matter what his intention was, it's bad because I don't get the joke".

I've seen quite a few comments like this on several topics lately. I read this as saying "it doesn't matter what his intention was, it's bad because I don't get the joke".

That's funny, because I read your comment as "I think I get the joke and I feel superior to those who do not."

Let me clarify, 'kay? Even if his intentions were sardonic and benevolent, the number of people misreading it gives the indication that maybe it's bad satire. If this many people aren't getting the joke, then somebody's doing their job wrong.

And if he is supposed to be taken at face value, then Trudeau is acting like a privileged asshat and seriously needs to take another look at reality.

"Let me clarify, 'kay? Even if his intentions were sardonic and benevolent, the number of people misreading it gives the indication that maybe it's bad satire. If this many people aren't getting the joke, then somebody's doing their job wrong."

Maybe it's bad satire. Maybe some people are too easily offended to get the satire. I dunno. Funny (like offense) is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people wanted Lenny Bruce jailed for his humor. Maybe they were right and he deserved to jailed. Maybe they were just too offended to get it.

I remember when "Life of Brian" came out. A great many christians were outraged (and offended). According to your logic, the film must have been poorly made and unfunny (as since so many people didn't get it, they (Monty Python) obviously weren't doing their job right).

I'm not sure what your point is: nobody's suggesting Trudeau be jailed. It's my understanding that many of the Christians who objected to Life of Brian hadn't seen the movie.

I've been reading Doonesbury for ten years, and have read a great many of the collections that predate me. I know Joanie's and Lacey's characters really well. And I don't see any "dry" humor or satire here. If I don't get it--and I'm part of the target audience, long-term Doonesbury readers--then I don't really have a problem saying that if it's meant to be satire, it's poorly done. How many long-term Monty Python fans were offended by Life of Brian?

I'm not sure what your point is: nobody's suggesting Trudeau be jailed. It's my understanding that many of the Christians who objected to Life of Brian hadn't seen the movie.

You said it, EG. Also, the people that object to films like Life of Brian are offended because they consider the satire to be in poor taste (i.e. blasphemy) and not because they think the satire is ineffective.

"I've been reading Doonesbury for ten years, and have read a great many of the collections that predate me. I know Joanie's and Lacey's characters really well. And I don't see any "dry" humor or satire here. If I don't get it--and I'm part of the target audience, long-term Doonesbury readers--then I don't really have a problem saying that if it's meant to be satire, it's poorly done."

That's quite the high opinion you have of yourself! I too have read Doonesbury for years (have several of the early collections too). On occasion there were strips that I didn't get. The difference between you and I is that when I don't get it, I don't assume that nobody gets it (or because I don't get it, it can't be "got").

In my opinion, if it has to be simple enough for everyone to "get", it's pretty lame.

So, let me get this straight:

When feminists criticize that wretched sony playstation billboard, we're told that we're "reading too much into" the ad. When a cartoon is put up that says explicitly that feminism is no longer important, we're not being subtle enough to "get the joke." No, I don't buy it. It doesn't have to simple enough for everyone to get. But it does have to be well-done enough for long-time readers to get.

And, yes, I do have a pretty high estimation of myself in this particular area. I read for a living. James Joyce may baffle me; Trudeau, not so much.

Thanks, Bryan.

"And, yes, I do have a pretty high estimation of myself in this particular area. I read for a living. James Joyce may baffle me; Trudeau, not so much."

Thanx for proving my point; you don't get it, so it can't be got. You sound like my bible-thumper Aunt who told me I support same sex marriage because I "just don't get how the world is supposed to work".

Let me some up my feelings on the "I'm right and you're wrong crowd";

In a world so full of grey, why do so many of you people see things in only black or white? Just because you are unable to see the grey, doesn't mean it's not there.

P.S. There's an interesting discussion of this strip going on at Pandagon. Less offense being taken, less holier-than-thou preaching, and more rational disussion of what Trudeau was trying to say (with different interpretations being discussed, not people attacking others for having a different interpretation). Very refreshing for this sort of topic.

Hmm. One of the things I find missing in this debate is people actually looking at what Trudeau is saying. Do you really think that Trudeau is saying that abolitionists, suffragettes, or feminists really outlived their welcome? Or, more likely, that the struggles change and therefore the language does too? I mean, if the suffragettes did everything necessary to ensure women's rights, there would have been no need for feminists; if abolitionists had secured rights for African-Americans, then we would not have needed the Civil Rights movement. I doubt very much that Trudeau is belittling feminists or their idea, just as I can't see him belittling suffragettes or abolitionists.

But a major difference, as far as I see, is that the Suffragettes and the Abolitionists were groups that organized around one issue: votes for women and slavery, respectively. So yes, once slavery was abolished and women received the vote, there was no more need for either group. But feminists organized themselves around various principles, and at a guess I would say the most unifying one is that women are full human beings, not aberrations from some male norm, and should be accorded all the rights, privileges, and considerations that pertain thereto. And that struggle hasn't been won.

Raging Moderate:

Where exactly do you see any attacking going on? I disagreed with you; you're the one who brought my "opinion of myself" into it and started comparing me to a Bible-thumper. I don't see any evidence for your interpretation; you haven't provided any. Where's the personal attack in that?

And I'm still not sure of your point...am I supposed to pretend that I don't agree with my own interpretation? Or that I'm not good at something that I am good at?

But a major difference, as far as I see, is that the Suffragettes and the Abolitionists were groups that organized around one issue: votes for women and slavery, respectively.

That's not really true. The name suffragettes stuck to a movement that was about a lot more than suffrage. It considered suffrage to be its primary political objective just like second-wave feminism considered considered equal work to be its, but the movement itself was considerably broader, just like second-wave feminism.

Two words, libdevel:

RACE and CLASS.

All too often left by the wayside in feminist debates...

You think so, Bryan? In what way?

"I don't see any evidence for your interpretation; you haven't provided any."

I didn't provide evidence to support my interpretation because I didn't provide my interpretation. It's not really relevant to what I was commenting on; those who believe their interpretation is the only correct interpretation. This comment of yours led me to believe you were one of them:

"And I don't see any "dry" humor or satire here. If I don't get it--and I'm part of the target audience, long-term Doonesbury readers--then I don't really have a problem saying that if it's meant to be satire, it's poorly done."

I took this to mean that since you didn't find this strip to be humorous or satirical, the only possible conclusion is that it wasn't humorous or satirical.

Maybe I'm wrong.

What do you think of the interpretations offered by Elayne, The Countessa, and libdevil? Are they legitimate interpretations, or are they just plain wrong?

Come on! Really it is just a cartoon. The fact that feminists are taking such offense suggests that there might be an element of truth in what the cartoonist is saying.

I do think that feminism did have a place in the modern western world, but frankly I find it is starting to outlive it's welcome.

Often I find feminism to have some interesting ideas to offer, but recently it is nothing more than women complaining that life isn't fair to them. It is getting boring.

I am a woman, but I am not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because I don't think 'feminism' is needed now - what is needed now is a better understanding of BOTH sexes. We need both sexes to work together to ensure equality for MEN as well as WOMEN.

Men are feeling frustrated and unheard as a result of modern feminism which dresses them up like some other species that dominates and suppresses women. I don't believe men are dominating women.

What exactly is feminism fighting for in the west? I don't feel repressed on the basis of my gender - of course, this is not to say the oppression doesn't exist elsewhere... it is just that from where I stand I don't feel disadvantaged because I am a woman... in fact, I worry because if feminists keep pushing as they do you will fuel a backlash of men against women - and it isn't going to be pretty!

Is the job of suffrage done when most women do not vote for their own safety and health? or their own gender into office? Is the job of abolitionists finished when people of color are still clearly de-valued?

As Lacey says, the words are retired once the debate is over. "Once a social transformation is largely complete, the language that drove it loses both its urgency and meaning." Well, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse. I would suggest that when a movement has been taken as far as those in power are going to allow it, the empowering language is diminished, disregarded and dismantled. (DUH ~ DISed) The movement is brushed with a stroke of invisible paint, right guys?

LARGELY COMPLETE? Maybe this is where the disagreement festers. Who the hell thinks that feminism is largely complete? 14% of Congress. 6% of the Fortune 500 CEOs. 76 cents on the dollar. The United States ranks 67th in the world in women in leadership.

Cremate the bra, wear your best bra, do anything you want with your bra but my message to Garry Trudeau is that the movement has made small advances which are currently under attack and eroding. Feminism is needed more than ever and his recognition of that would make for a much better dream.

See this is where feminism falls short in my opinion. I don't want to look at the political candidates on the basis of whether or not they are male and female and then feel I have to pick the female because I am helping a sister. I will pick a candidate that I feel is right for the job - regardless of gender.

As for language, anyone who studies it over a period of time would realise that it changes. The word 'feminism' may mean something different to the world today than it once did. Also you are contending with the fact that there are so many facets to feminist theory that the concept of feminism cannot be captured with a few words.

I doubt that feminism will take off her cap and take a nap once a woman is in office - no, I suspect the movement would continue regardless because there is always inequality in the world. I am concerned that now feminism is a fuel for this rather than a remedy. Especially in regards to father's rights and men's rights in particular.

I doubt that feminism will take off her cap and take a nap once a woman is in office - no, I suspect the movement would continue regardless because there is always inequality in the world. I am concerned that now feminism is a fuel for this rather than a remedy. Especially in regards to father's rights and men's rights in particular.

Well, there certainly is a way to protect people from gender discrimination: The ERA Who ever said that feminism didn't have good ideas? Just three more states and it's ratified...

Oh please! The ERA 'says' that it aims to fight for the right of men and women,and yet the focus is only on women's rights.

Who are the supporters of the ERA? Women's groups and only women's groups. Where are the men activist groups?

I see ONE reference to the need to fight for men's rights on that website and that didn't even get more than a sentence.

I think I am justified to think that this 'wonderful idea' is a feminist run movement for women and only women. No matter what the ERA claims.

Oh, please yourself: the text of the 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.

No reference to men or women whatsoever, simply an outlawing of gender discrimination.

Yes but if you look throughout the site you will see that the whole idea is geared towards women.

The biggest supporter of this idea is from women's movements - where are the men's movements involvement? This is a woman's project for women - but they pay lip-service to 'defending men's rights' without outlining much hard action at all!

Where are the issues that men want to deal with. Where are the references to family court law, to father's rights, to men's roles in the decision for abortion? The false rape claims? And so on?

Sorry, but this might look like a wonderful thing in your eyes, but it isn't good enough for me - and I am sure that it is not much for the men either.

Eh. I can't speak for the 'men's rights' movement--the things they care about don't really make much sense to me--women talk about equal pay for equal work and about punishing rapists, and the "mens' advocates" complain about forcing womnen to carry fetuses to term?

And don't get me started about "the false rape claims," which happen, at the absolute most, 10% as often as unreported rapes (anecdotally, I have never known a man that was seriously accused of rape, but I know over 5 women and one man who have been raped--none reported their attacker. This might be the most underdiscussed issue in the modern body politic.)

Getting back on topic, the ERA would equalize family court law. It would instantly lay to rest all of this "special privilige" bullshit that the right has been pushing since 1920.

They care about being able to see their children since they are paying to provide material benefits. That makes sense to me... why doesn't it make sense to you?

Some men might be against abortion but that I think is an issue wrapped in the subject of religion and should not be unfairly attributed to the men's movement. This abortion question isn't an issue of men who 'force' women to have a child... it is a religious issue - the issue of life - personally I am pro-choice but some people feel uncomfortable about what they think is killing innocent life or at the least being irresponsible with 'life'... I think most men would be pro-choice by default. The men who make a fuss are usually part of the religious right.

I hope what you say about the ERA is true. Although I still think it has a focus on women more than men.

Engendertruth, do you take offense to civil rights and anti-racist laws not emphasizing the rights of White/Caucasian people? These laws are meant to protect minorities which have been discriminated against for centuries.

Same case here, I don't think I have seen many evidence of women oppressing men. Sexual violence against men? Discrimination against men?

False rape claims are a legal and case-by-case problem. Overall, it seems that the victim is herself under very close scrutiny and her credibility is often endangered if she isn't a nun or dressed like one. As far as men's role in a decision to abort, I'm sorry, but it's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

You think so, Bryan? In what way?

Well, Qi, I do think so, and let me explain why! Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that prevalent feminist discourses address women’s issues as if they were applicable to all women. Reproductive rights and sex-positive feminism are important things, but when you’re a working-class woman of color being exploited in a minimum-wage job, you’re bound to have slightly more immediate concerns. How often do you hear feminists meaningfully engage race and class (and the inevitable intersections between the two)? I know I’m guilty of letting those two issues fall by the wayside. We’re lucky enough in the blogosphere to have some people pick up the slack - Brownfemipower, Bitch|Lab, etc. - but we’re still woefully understaffed in those areas.

And if that isn't enough of a convincing argument for you, you even inspired me to write a whole damn post about the thing!

Don't feed the men's rights troll...

I think it's clear that this wasn't satire or dry humor. I agree with Amanda's take that it WAS a bit wistful, but naively so. It would be nice to think that feminism is no longer needed, but it's pretty obvious that's just not the case. that being said, I also thought the comic was pretty condescending...

Hi Bryan, see my response at your blog. Basically my point is that the need seems to be less that feminists should discuss racism and class in themselves but rather that feminism should take into account the way that the salience of gender issues are mediated by race and class. The only thing that really requires is more work input.

Bittergradstudent, the official statistics about false rape reports say that 2% of reports are false - the same percentage as for other violent crimes.

Although rape is indeed severely underreported, assault and robbery have similar problems. The reporting rate for rape is somewhat lower than for robbery and assault, but the difference disappears when you consider only completed rapes.

"Engendertruth, do you take offense to civil rights and anti-racist laws not emphasizing the rights of White/Caucasian people?"
Posted by: Scarlet

That is such an obvious, excellent point, and by the time I got to the end of this long ridiculous thread I was going to post the same thing.

Somehow a thread about an important commentary about evolution of feminism has been turned around into a men's rights charade. Jessica's right, don't feed the trolls.

People who come on a young feminist's board and rant about how wrong your perspective is and how you don't have a sense of humor, are exclusionary, etc., are people with an agenda. They are not here to listen or make nice. They are here to put you girls in your place.

And also, Scarlet, in regards to civil rights, although the answer is technically "yes" because even now they'd love to roll that back....it is really not possible, because it is politically incorrect to do so. African Americans have reached that TIPPING POINT which has given them legitimacy, a certain degree of protection. NO SUCH TIPPING POINT has been reached in the struggle for women's rights, or gay rights.

This is why we are able to be so viciously attacked, and what rights have been hard-won are dissolving before our eyes.

Gary did not mean anything malicious by his cartoon, and neither was it satire. And no feminists here are claiming it was malicious, anyway. It is merely inaccurate. Perhaps 15 years ago one could look at the landscape and see a straight line of progress. But not today. From what I see, feminism is needed once again, and I am glad to see websites such as this one which is nurturing young feminists, and that they "get" it.

The "Other Side" has a strategy of dividing, discrediting, shaming, and killing good ideas in their infancy before they can grow. Then they prance out neoconservative and psycho females like Ann Coulter as proof of some sort of victory for women's lib. That's no victory, that's a betrayal to the cause, and I'll take a male feminists anyday before accepting a female who attacks her own gender.

American blacks understand what betrayal to ideas mean. They know that Clarence Thomas is not one of them. And he is not proof of the success of civil rights or a legitimate excuse why affirmative action should be scrapped or that race need not be taken into consideration in regards to colleges.

Yes, there are backlashes. But it is not the fault of feminists and working women anymore than it is the fault of African Americans.

No, Mr. Trudeau, you are premature. We have reached no tipping point, and women's rights are now under assault as a direct result of that failure.

Zoe, your observation was brilliant:

"I would suggest that when a movement has been taken as far as those in power are going to allow it, the empowering language is diminished, disregarded and dismantled."

Ok girls, let's see what 3rd wave feminism is made of.

I think Zoe's observation should be reversed. After a movement has achieved its major goals, the oppressive language is diminished by metaphor: words like "lynch" and "disenfranchise" become somewhat ameliorated by metaphor. Hence when people today talk about lynchings in the 1930s, the immediate connotation is not brutal torture followed by hanging, but harsh criticism.

I missed this strip the first time because I was busy marching to defend women's reproductive rights in a state that will almost certainly vote to ban abortion next year. So, uh, yeah, what Jessica said: Naively wistful. If Trudeau's strip were true, my knees would be a lot less sore.

Doesn't make him a bad guy. Just unengaged, imperfect and in need of further education, like we all probably are in some areas, and to varying extents. I did not become engaged on immigrants' rights or death penalty abolition until the past year or so.

Hopefully he has learned or will learn something from the feminist response to this strip--as I'm sure there are feminists in his own social circles who have taken him to task about it. Maybe even one or two who read Feministing.

Cheers,

TH

Sorry about your knees, Tom. We all thank you for your efforts. If you have any stories to tell from your experiences out there, feel free to share. Most of us are not marching with you, but wish we could.