8 ms·

The stories about the backlash against the diversity efforts at Stanford, circa 1994, are what Susan Faludi was talking about in her book "Backlash: The Undecla

The stories about the backlash against the diversity efforts at Stanford, circa 1994, are what Susan Faludi was talking about in her book "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women" which was published in 1991. That era saw a turning point, as various important factions in USA society withdrew their support from the project of advancing the role of women in society. The encouragement given during the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s disappeared in the 1990s.

imanaccount247 12y ago
>That era saw a turning point, as various important factions in USA society withdrew their support from the project of advancing the role of women in society. Like who?
- electronvolt 12y ago
  Any prior Republican support for women's reproductive rights/etc. had dried up at that time because of their alignment in the '80s with the evangelical Christian right. In the '80s the party platform dropped support for the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights. Also, religious groups that were traditionally very liberal/voted Democrat (e.x. Catholics) on social issues also broke off from the Democrats over abortion and reproductive rights related issues over the course of the '80s, which isn't to say they were specifically /for/ those things at any point, they just became something more political in the '80s. I wouldn't really have said that 1991 was a clear date for the 'start' of that process, though. Perhaps more "When it got into full swing." The other thing is that the loss of large groups like the Catholics and the involvement of the Christian Right in general caused the Democrats to swing right as well, which means that even when the Dems were in power in the '90s their attitudes and the policies they enacted were often more conservative than they had been before RE: women's lib/rights/etc., even if they still supported most of the issues on paper.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    So an actually accurate statement would have been "some people are opposed to complete freedom on abortions". That's not quite the same as not supporting the advancement of women in society.
    - sedachv 12y ago
      How is the campaign to legally revert the status of womens' bodies to property supporting the advancement of women in society? http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. It has no place in a reasoned discussion.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated (its also the reason for the dishonest rhetoric, since extremists on both sides feel that the cause is so important as to justify any dishonesty.)
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        >No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care.
        dragonwriter 12y ago

imanaccount247 12y ago

>That era saw a turning point, as various important factions in USA society withdrew their support from the project of advancing the role of women in society. Like who?

electronvolt 12y ago
Any prior Republican support for women's reproductive rights/etc. had dried up at that time because of their alignment in the '80s with the evangelical Christian right. In the '80s the party platform dropped support for the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights. Also, religious groups that were traditionally very liberal/voted Democrat (e.x. Catholics) on social issues also broke off from the Democrats over abortion and reproductive rights related issues over the course of the '80s, which isn't to say they were specifically /for/ those things at any point, they just became something more political in the '80s. I wouldn't really have said that 1991 was a clear date for the 'start' of that process, though. Perhaps more "When it got into full swing." The other thing is that the loss of large groups like the Catholics and the involvement of the Christian Right in general caused the Democrats to swing right as well, which means that even when the Dems were in power in the '90s their attitudes and the policies they enacted were often more conservative than they had been before RE: women's lib/rights/etc., even if they still supported most of the issues on paper.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  So an actually accurate statement would have been "some people are opposed to complete freedom on abortions". That's not quite the same as not supporting the advancement of women in society.
  - sedachv 12y ago
    How is the campaign to legally revert the status of womens' bodies to property supporting the advancement of women in society? http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. It has no place in a reasoned discussion.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated (its also the reason for the dishonest rhetoric, since extremists on both sides feel that the cause is so important as to justify any dishonesty.)
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        >No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care.
        dragonwriter 12y ago