【Native Speaker每日综合训练—43系列】【43-08】文史哲 feminism

ffffionabear

内容：油桃F 编辑：Fffffionabear

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

Part I: Speaker

This isn't her mother's feminism
Source: TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/courtney_martin_reinventing_feminism#
[Rephrase 1, 11:26]

ffffionabear

Part II: Speed

Emma Watson gives feminism new life
By Gayle Tzemach Lemmon

[Time 2]
Emma Watson lent her name and her glittery profile to the cause of feminism at the United Nations, and in the process got places that rarely cover this eight-letter "f" word to pay attention.

"How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?" Watson said in a speech about gender equality that received a standing ovation and has gone viral. "Men -- I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too," she said.

Rarely do "E! Online" and U.N. Women tweet the same speech. But this wasn't just any speech. It focused on the role of men and questioned the demonization of the term "feminism."
"Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men," Watson said.

"My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn't love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn't assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influences are the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it but they are the inadvertent feminists needed in the world today. We need more of those."
[289 words]

[Time 3]
Watson gave the speech in light of the U.N. launch of the HeForShe campaign, which aims to engage men to stop violence against women.

We live in a world in which 100 million girls globally are expected to be married off before age 18 in the next 10 years, a world in which even in the United States a girl can find herself plucked against her will from a New York classroom and forced by relatives to marry against her will in a country she has never known, a world in which 31 million girls of elementary school age remain out of school, a world in which two-thirds of the world's 774 million illiterate citizens are female.

Indeed, Watson's star is only the latest to illuminate the rebranding of feminism. As Jessica Bennett wrote on Time.com, Beyonce put the word "FEMINIST" in a blaze of full-stage glory at the MTV Video Music Awards, "making Sunday the sixth-highest day for volume of conversation about feminism since Twitter began tracking this year (the top three were days during #Yes All Women)."

Beyonce also penned a piece last year arguing that "men have to demand that their wives, daughters, mothers and sisters earn more—commensurate with their qualifications and not their gender. Equality will be achieved when men and women are granted equal pay and equal respect."

The question now is how to translate all the high-profile feminizing into visible, on-the-ground gains in the lives of ordinary women and men. The retaking of the "feminist" label by cultural luminaries lending their platform to the issue is laudable, but to date we have seen a lot of promise and much less progress.
[278 words]

[Time 4]
One example: On the media front women are embarrassingly absent from editorial pages still content to feature women's voices a fraction of the time. Women "are less likely than men to be sources or appear in authoritative roles in news stories, are depicted less frequently than males and less prominently, such as appearing further down in the columns, with fewer quotes or only paraphrased." (A recent Washington Post review of a Civil War book noted that the author's prose seemed "to have been borrowed from the pages of a women's magazine." Rarely have I spotted such a reference to GQ or Esquire.)

In entertainment, research from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media found in a survey of recently released films that there are "2.24 male characters for every female character. Only 30.9% of the speaking characters are female." On the economic front, "after a gradual rise in the 1980s and 1990s, the women's-to-men's earnings ratio peaked at 81% in 2005 and 2006."

So, the talk about access to opportunity for everyone is terrific. But now comes the hard part: the action to make the change and in the process create a world that is fairer for everyone. One that does justice to the ambition of girls in any and every corner of the world, and to our own hopes for a more stable, secure and prosperous future.

It will take a village. One boosted by a lot of high-wattage celebrities helping to light the way.
[247 words]
Source: CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/23/opinion/lemmon-emma-watson/index.html?iref=allsearch

Celebrity Feminist Identification Has Reached Peak Meaninglessness

[Time 5]
Last year, actress Ellen Page expressed disappointment that many of her fellow actresses have disavowed the feminist label. “How could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word?" she told Guardian reporter Hadley Freedman. Feminism, she said, “always gets associated with being a radical movement—good. It should be.” But at this point, the feminist label is no longer particularly radical, or even necessarily political. It’s just good branding.

This week, Karl Lagerfeld promoted his spring 2015 Chanel line with a runway feminist march where models led by Cara Delevingne carried picket signs reading things like “Be Your Own Stylist,” “Feminist but Feminine,” and “Free Freedom,” to the tune of Chaka Khan’s “I’m Every Woman.” And Emily Ratajkowski—the topless dancer from Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” video turned Gone Girl movie star—told Cosmopolitan magazine that she feels lucky that she can "wear what she wants, sleep with whom she wants, and dance how she wants, while still being a feminist.”

These feminist statements are sublime in their lack of substance. Are figures like Lagerfeld and Ratajkowski promoting feminism, or just using feminism to promote themselves? It’s impossible to tell. For a new crop of celebrities, feminism can signify absolutely anything—or to put it another way, nothing. The important thing is just saying the word where somebody hears you.
[231 words]

[Time 6]
Well, we asked for it. Feminists have been campaigning for female celebrities to champion the label for years. Every time a famous woman claims that she is not a feminist—from Taylor Swift’s “I don’t really think about things as guys versus girls” to Lady Gaga’s “I'm not a feminist, I hail men”—their statements are denounced as not just wrong about feminism, but wrong about themselves.  (As Maureen O’Connor put it in The Cut last year, “When it comes to click bait headlines, ‘is not a feminist’ is the female media equivalent of ‘nip slip.’”) When Shailene Woodley disavowed feminism this year, Women and Hollywood’s Melissa Silverstein penned Woodley an open letter instructing her that feminism simply means “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities,” and that Woodley herself was already basically a feminist, whether she likes it or not. “If there was no feminism you would not be a movie star,” Silverstein wrote. BuzzFeed responded to Woodley’s quote with a list of the “21 Most Feminist Things Shailene Woodley Has Ever Said.”

This argument—that feminism is so commonsensical that all famous women already embody it, no matter what they believe—has, in recent months, proven to be an easy sell. "I feel like I'm one of the biggest feminists in the world because I tell women to not be scared of anything,” Miley Cyrus said in November of last year. (Compared to “I hail men,” "women shouldn't live in fear" is practically misandrist.) Swift, too, has come around. “As a teenager, I didn’t understand that saying you’re a feminist is just saying that you hope women and men will have equal rights and equal opportunities,” Swift said in August. It’s not clear whether she believes that wish has come true, or what ought to be done about it. Whatever it is, she’s doing it: She recently realized she’s “been taking a feminist stance without actually saying so.”

But adopting the "feminist" label requires no stance. That means that female celebrities have been freed to use it in both incredibly exciting displays—as when Beyoncé stared down a crowd in front of an enormous glowing “FEMINIST” sign at the Video Music Awards in August—as well as co-opt it in the service of inane quotes. Who knows how the word will be redefined (or dropped) when the season changes. As Hollywood publicist Howard Bragman told the Washington Post’s Jessica Contrera, feminism may constitute a social justice movement for women around the world, but for celebrities, it’s “a moving target.”
[426 words]
Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/01/celebrity_feminists_karl_lagerfeld_and_emily_ratajkowski_make_feminism_fashionable.html

ffffionabear

Part III: Obstacle

Ten Days to a Better Feminist Movement
What Americans Can Learn from Sweden's Feminist Initiative

[Paraphrase 7]
On the evening of Sunday, September 14, young women voters were popping corks across Sweden after general election exit polls projected that the Feminist Initiative (FI) party had passed the four percent threshold required to win a parliamentary seat. In the end, their celebrations proved premature, with final counts apportioning the FI some 3.1 percent of the vote. But the surprisingly strong performance of their party -- headed by Gudrun Schyman, a former contestant of the Swedish version of Dancing with the Stars, who’d campaigned alongside ABBA’s Benny Andersson and Pharrell Williams (of “Blurred Lines” notoriety) -- was enough to win the FI headlines the world over the next day.

Founded in 2005, the FI aims to put gender issues squarely and explicitly at the top of Sweden’s political agenda. In particular, Schyman says, she founded the party to tackle pay inequality in Sweden -- where women now earn 86 percent as much as men for the same work, a mere two-percentage-point improvement over the past decade. Schyman’s message has apparently resonated across Sweden: since January, its membership has shot from 1,500 to 18,000, giving it the fourth-largest roster among Swedish political parties. In May, it became the first-ever feminist party to send a representative to the European Parliament, garnering over five percent of the vote nationwide and more than 30 percent in some of the country’s most left-wing districts in cities such as Malmö. Among those who voted for the FI in those elections, some 70 percent were under age 25 -- making it a truly singular phenomenon in global politics.

Prior to this month’s general election, Schyman had predicted that the FI’s momentum would be politically contagious worldwide: “When people see that this is possible, a lot of other countries will follow for the simple reason that a lot of other cultures have the same problems.” But in the United States, at least, FI­-style calls for more politically institutionalized approaches to gender issues are more apt to provoke derision than serious debate -- this despite the New Republic’s recent headline that feminism had “conquered the culture,” after pop superstar Beyoncé danced at the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony in front of a huge backlit banner proclaiming her to be FEMINIST.

But American culture is one thing and its politics quite another. From the Supreme Court’s recent reining in of reproductive rights with its Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision in June, in which it exempted family-owned corporations from paying for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act, to last week’s failure in the Senate, for the third time since 2012, to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was meant to close the gap in pay between women and men, the United States’ political institutions have shown themselves uniquely resistant to tackling gender issues on a national scale.

Sweden’s FI has shown that simply exercising citizenship rights can, at minimum, help bring gender issues to the forefront of debate at the highest levels of politics.
American women in turn, seeing their concerns sidelined again and again in Washington, seem to have turned away from politics. Despite the fact that American women vote at higher rates than men, repeated studies have confirmed that they trail men in other measures of political activity, such as donating to candidates (although recent research indicates this trend is mitigated among women represented by a female senator). Instead, they have trained their focus on nonpolitical means of boosting gender equity. Turning the personal-is-political mantra of second-wave feminism on its head, U.S. feminism has taken a marked turn toward lifestyle issues, with a new focus on empowering women within the political and economic frameworks that already exist.

A glance at one of the United States’ many feminist blogs will reveal endless tips on how to develop an empowered body image or “lean in” to one’s career; endless introspection on how to cope with the travails of motherhood and the “second shift”; endless microexaminations of the power dynamics at play, for example, in how men and women behave on public transport or online dating sites. Much of this lifestyle feminist writing assumes that if women can simply secure well-paid jobs and inform men of the myriad ways sexism permeates society, they can increase gender equity.

Sweden, too, is no stranger to lifestyle feminism. In 2010, one couple made a splash in the local press by refusing to publicly reveal the sex of their two-and-a-half-year-old child, Pop, so that Pop would grow up free of gendered expectations. In 2012, the country saw the official introduction of the gender-neutral pronoun hen to the country’s online National Encyclopedia, a tide of gender neutrality that has also touched Swedish bowling leagues, restrooms, preschools, publishing houses, and much more.

Unlike in the United States, however, in Sweden, lifestyle feminism functions as the long tail of -- not a substitute for -- institutionalized political gender equality. The Swedish constitution incorporates a formal sex equality measure. And although the FI is the first explicitly feminist party in Sweden (in all of Europe, in fact), every center-left party in the country supports the welfare state that has made Sweden the pride of the EU when it comes to family policies that enhance gender equality. Even the centrist Liberal Party has added feminism to its platform, campaigning under the slogan “Feminism without socialism” in the recent general election.

Although Europe has no shortage of welfare states, what differentiates Sweden’s model from, say, Germany’s conservative male-breadwinner model or the United Kingdom’s liberal model is its emphasis on encouraging a two-career family structure. The country runs a flexible parental-leave scheme that grants mothers and fathers a combined 16 months of paid leave, with use-it-or-lose-it allowances of two months for each parent and 12 months that can be shared; both parents may use their leave simultaneously if desired. Fathers now take some 24 percent of all parental leave, much more than in most other EU countries, and receive tax incentives if they take more.

Sweden also runs a system of universal, high-quality subsidized child care that has attracted an enrollment of 95 percent of children between ages three and six. Parents who do not enroll their children in day care between ages one and three also receive a monthly stipend. Finally, to adapt to changing family structures, the country has recently set up the Committee on Financial Cooperation Between Separated Parents to tweak these welfare provisions as needed to support the sharing of child care between divorced parents.

As a result of these measures, as of 2012, the country had the largest proportion of working mothers in the European Union, with Swedish women working an average of five fewer hours per week than men, the smallest differential in the EU. In fact, at 3.1 percent of GDP, the country boasts one of the EU’s highest shares of public spending on family benefits and a gender pay gap of 15.8 percent, an improvement on the European average of 16.2 percent. It also has one of the EU’s lowest child poverty rates and one of the world’s highest rankings for child well-being in 2007. Swedes overall report a life satisfaction of 7.4 on a scale of 1 to 10, higher than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average of 6.6, with Swedish women reporting even higher levels than men -- 7.7 compared with 7.1.

Despite these outstanding results, though, even the most zealous feminists in the United States have so far failed to take Schyman’s lead and establish their own feminist political parties. That reticence certainly reflects activists’ awareness of the many impediments to importing FI-style politics to the United States.

For one, there are the demographic issues. Sweden’s largely homogeneous population hovers under ten million, whereas the United States’ much more diverse population tops 300 million. Such diversity and size make collective-action problems bigger for all U.S. political organizers, feminist or otherwise.

Then there are the differences in the two democracies’ institutional design. Sweden’s party-list parliamentary system fragments political power and forces the larger parties to build coalitions in order to govern. This, in turn, amplifies the voices of smaller groups such as the FI. Even if the FI lacks delegates in parliament, it will be able to contribute to public debates -- particularly now that, having surpassed 2.5 percent of the vote, it is entitled to public financing for the first time. The United States’ terminally gridlocked two-party system, on the other hand, requires far more consensus to bring political proposals into mainstream debate. Politicians tend to see public campaign financing as uncompetitive, turning instead to private fundraising. This leads to a political-economy equilibrium between private economic interests and legislators that functions to restrict the political agenda.

It is this political-economy equilibrium that has proved most effective in turning American feminists away from political engagement and toward lifestyle issues. For example, the activist Johanna Brenner has chronicled how second-wave feminists viewed Swedish-style welfare programs aimed at socializing the work of child care as fundamental to the emancipation of women. In 1971, these feminists did manage to secure legislation for a federally funded universal day-care program. U.S. President Richard Nixon apparently viewed the implicit redistribution of political power and wealth embedded in such a program as too extreme and promptly vetoed the bill. As Washington’s neoliberal orientation solidified over the following decades, feminists moved toward lifestyle issues and cultural activism in order to adapt to harsh political realities.

The consequences of political disenchantment have proved enduring. The United States remains the only advanced democracy to lack any provision for paid parental leave. Huge gaps yawn between women at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum: in 2012, the poverty rate among families headed by single mothers was around 33 percent for white women, 47 percent for black women, and 49 percent for Hispanic women. Meanwhile, thanks to the post-second-wave emphasis on equal labor rights over social welfare, high-performing and affluent women enjoy greater opportunities than ever before. For instance, women now hold five percent of CEO positions and 14.3 percent of executive officer positions in Fortune 500 companies (although these gains have fallen disproportionately to white women).
[1688 words]

[Rest]
New platforms such as Twitter are mainstreaming marginalized voices in U.S. feminism’s conversations, particularly of black and other intersectional feminists -- sometimes to the consternation of the lifestyle wing. (In February, for instance, The Nation’s Michelle Goldberg wrote an article titled “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars,” in which she wondered, “Whose movement is it?”) Further, young millennials, who have grown up being told (and believing) that their opportunities are substantively equal to those of their male peers, are increasingly politically activated as they begin to plan for and experience maternity and are surprised by the career vulnerability and penalties that tend to accompany it.

Bringing feminism into mainstream American politics will certainly require a coalition that cuts across many different groups. But Sweden’s FI has shown that simply exercising citizenship rights can, at minimum, help bring gender issues to the forefront of debate at the highest levels of politics. Young Americans may have heard from their country’s current feminist in chief that “girls run the world.” And now they have to do it.
[172 words]
Source: Foreign affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142110/samantha-eyler/ten-days-to-a-better-feminist-movement

cyndichiang

Speaker
The speaker's family history and her feminist mother's influence on her habitats
The speaker has different ways of feminist activities from her mother,changes mean immigration for her
Two paradoxes:1.from rejecting to acclaiming  2. her generation's sense that they are special to the world
The speaker 's contribution on woman' issues and political engagement
After some failures,There are two aim of them: 1. change broken system 2. rule themselves

Obstacle: 7'31''
comparison Feminists Institution Sweden and the U.S
Sweden FI win to some extend, whereas Feminists in the U.S are push from political engagements to lifestyle issues.
reason: demographic issues/democracies’ institutional design

sutingting

Speed 忘了时间了~~

Obstacle:
Time[14'32]
Rest[1'52]
FI passed the threshold required to win a parliamentary seat.
History of FI- put gender issue at the top of S's political agenda.
Contagious: other countries will follow; but in US, politically institutionlized -> provoke derision
In US, culture do not equil with politics-> unwilling to tackle gender issue on a national scale
U.S femenists' ways to promote feminism -> focus more on lifestyle
Swedenifestyle feminism fuctions as the long tail of political gender equality
The model of other countries in Europe.
Sweden: a system of subsidized child care. -> results: higher proportion of working women, high life satisfaction
BUT-> US feminists failed to form their own political party, because:
1.demographic issue: diverse
2.different democracies' institutional design
3.political-economy equilibrium
New platforms for feminists

cherry6891

43-08
Time2
Emma is famous for be a feminism and she try's to make gender equality
Time3
A lot of women in the world suffer men violence or marriage stranger or illiterate in the world. Now they want to translate high-profile feminizing into visible,on the ground gains in the ordinary life.
Time4
Women's voice is less louder than men and women is seldom to appear authoritative roles in media.
The hardest part is making the change and creating the world to be a fair one for everyone
Time5
Actress E felt disappoint about her fellow reluctance to disavow the feminist.
And the slogan Chanel models showered is slimed but lack of substance.
Time6

Obstacle
women get better treaty in many respects in S and S wants to copy that to the rest of the world.
S bring the gender issue to the highest politilical level while American FI style turns away from politics.
The reason of the difference:demographic issue, the two democracy's institutional
Design,political-economy equilibrium lead to the FI turn away from politics, the consequences of politician disenchantment is enduring.

peggychianglove

1.. 1:45
Watson suggests that the feminism is also so an issue for men and that women should have equal role like men in this society.

2.. 1:30
Watson’s and Byonce’s stars give feminism topic in a blaze. However, widely awakening is not enough to change. Feminist should think about how to make an actual progress.

3.. 1:25
The author gives the statistics to show that fewer women sources are present in the editorial comments and in movies to concrete the author’s assertion that more action should be taken.

4.. 1:33
An actress says that some women still link the word “feminism” with radical, but, in fact, feminist can be feminine. Chanel also show the slogans to support feminism. However, the author questions that whether the brand truly wants to promote the idea or promote the brand.

5.. 2:26
Although some women stars say that they are not feminists, in fact, they are. The author gives some examples to illustrate this argument.

obstacle. 11:9
Comparison of feminism action between United States and Sweden. The author uses the party issue in Sweden to bring out the feminism issue in America.

samantha12

Speaking
Led by her living circumstance, the topic which orator wanted to explain is feminism, but not just about feminism.
After saying some interesting cases happened in her life, the orator told about 3 paradox.
The first paradox exists mainly between herself and her mother; The second stands the contradiction between the unstable state quo and future and ideal envision rooted in the young's mind, which she used her past as an example; the third comes that how to treat rightly with failure.
At last, the orator defined a new way to be oneself.

Reading 2 1:56.51
The article used something about Emma as a leading part. In this part, Emma's idea has been claimed-- that is, feminism is not just an issue about woman, but also about men. Then she used her personal experience to prove that women should be treated equal to men.

Reading 3 2:05.54
Watson gave her speech in a campaign. What kind of world we live has been claimed. Emma is not the only one who cares  about women-- her case just is the latest. Some other operations have been done, even though is not enough.

Reading 4 1:44.92
Kinds of obstacles we faced in women's issues. The author gave out his envision.

Reading 5 1:56.77
A problem Ellen encountered when she appealed other girls to do the same. Although part of celebrities refused to do so, the other part expressed their attitudes clearly. Is it meaningful to do such thing?

Reading 6 3:12.25
Celebrities' actions towards label themselves with feminism. It can be definitely a kind of progress, but also it can stand for something else, not so pure.
stance 姿态
inane 愚蠢的，空洞的。

Obstacle+ rest 16:54.34
The article started with the result of an campaign. Following that, the topic concerned about the affect on this issue.
Then the author turn his research object to American. During his explanation, we've known the American feminism characteristics. Then the article introduced some features in Sweden feminism, as well as achievements on improve their
women's living condition. Then the difference between two countries has been made. At the last part of this article, a new
way to focus on the women issue has effect on the society.

seraph797979

ffffionabear 发表于 2014-10-19 21:02
Part II: Speed
Emma Watson gives feminism new life
By Gayle Tzemach Lemmon

2,1‘38
3,1’40
4,1‘27
5,1’37
6,2‘33

Dasherrycan

time2 1'44   this article mainly talk about gender equity.Emma hold the opinion that female should have the same right just as men. Man also should take responsible for that.
time 3 1'50  waston hope more man anticipate such avtivities to decrease the violence.many waman cann't gain their basic right nodays.Beyonce also support such actibities through MTV award.
time 4 1'23   lesss female character take the responsible related to politic staff .in entertainment men speak more compare with women. now  many people try to light this way and help women gain more .
time 5 1'29   one people could't believe people think femnist is not a good lable even today.in 2006 chanel show many model pick the lable which show their freedom thinkng  to support .thety feel happy they can do whatever they want and being feminist.
time 5 2'25   TS said she is not feminist because she hail men.people now hold the opinion that feminist is mean men and women should have the same responsibiliy and opportunity . the difinition of feminist is changing.
obstade    too long  to read    add two passages from the  economics  today