The state of feminism
Published by punkass marc September 25th, 2006 in FeminismNo no no, I have no intention of delivering a national address on the subject, but a comment on the TRex meltdown that R Mildred discussed really through me for a loop:
One need look no further than the cracks about blond hair and tits from self-described “feminists” to see the reason for the sad state of feminism in this country today.
Jane Hamsher said that in response to someone’s comment about Ann Althouse’s seething jealousy, and I admit I was kinda shocked to be hearing such talk from the left.
Flanagan, Althouse, and other mouthpieces of oppression are working overtime to coopt the term feminism, but as long as there are plenty of correct-thinking people who proudly endorse and promote its real meaning, it’s not suddenly going to equate to “docile heterosexual homemaker in a berka.”
The right will always try to criminalize a word (see: liberalism) or hostilely take it over, but that doesn’t say anything about the actual state of the movement embodied by said word. So what was Jane thinking?
Feminism hasn’t recently enjoyed sweeping court successes like those of decades past, but that’s because those were successes. The front has moved into new territory with more room for plausible deniability of inequity from the pushers of the penis.
Of course, the new and thoroughly unimproved SCOTUS may have designs on reining in some of those legal successes, particularly the liberation of the uterus, but there will always be enemies of and threats to feminism, whether they are the White House or disingenuous CPCs or Miller Lite ad execs.
I bet there are more men today who identify as feminist or pro-feminist than ever before. Heck, there are probably more women identifying themselves as such, and more organizations and human hours devoted to advancing the cause properly, than ever before. That some wingnut turncoats have also cloaked themselves in the word suggests the movement has been effective enough to become dangerous in the eyes of big daddy patriarchy.
The deck remains stacked against feminists, and the fights will continue to be ugly and painful at times, but as far as I can tell, feminism is hardly in a “sad state.” Just because it’s still difficult after all these years doesn’t mean it’s going poorly. It just means we’re fighting eons of institutional oppression.
One development that won’t do any of us any good: feminists internalizing the idea that the movement is failing when it isn’t. Social change could always occur more efficiently, but we mustn’t let frustration turn into defeatism. Why a liberal, presumably feminist, woman like Jane Hamsher would engage in this kind of negativity escapes me. Unless I’m missing something huge, it’s flat-out wrong, and none of us should assist our detractors by adopting their lies.
One factor that’s assisting the cooption of the word is feminist unwillingness to say, “Uh, no she’s not.” We’re so afraid of running people off that we won’t put our foot down on what we know is clear and obvious cooption. My rule of thumb is if a self-proclaimed feminist never, ever defends women independent of doing so in service of a right wing agenda, she is not a feminist. You aren’t a feminist if you only write about how women in America need to be constrained or need to lose rights. If you don’t hold a single opinion about the advancement of women outside of the women in countries that BushCo has or would like to invade, you are not a feminist.
Well, this Jane Hamsher has turned out to be quite a peice of work. Early on in her blog days, she called Kate O’Beirne a Sandpaper Snatch. And (and as a self-confessed former addict) ridiculed Courtney Love for gaining weight (tho’ she “normally” wouldn’t mention a woman’s “weight issues”) in drug rehab?
And then she says what?
What is it about Jane and her faux blonde hair? I am thinking of TRex’s remark to Liza re “every blonde woman who ever pissed you off?” (which should have read “every blond woman who acted like a racist bitch’”)
Sorry, but I can’t help thinking that Jane is trying to co-opt race and gender issues in exactly the same way that the right has, buy applying double standards, and perverting the meaning of words and actions.