(Parts One, Two and Three are linked.)
See, this is one of the biggest reasons I don’t listen to Ann Coulter.
(wtf? How did Ann Coulter get involved in this? you might ask. Well–)
Ann has made a career out of, among other things, trashing feminism. The last time I paid any attention to much of anything she had to say was one of the first times I ever paid any attention to her at all–basically I got to the point where she was saying that women needed to get out of public discourse, particularly political public discourse, because they weren’t suited to it and had been screwing everything up in it for decades. Once I heard her say that, I translated it to mean that there was no point in listening to her discourse publicly anymore, particularly politically–I mean, she’s a woman herself. And I never argue with other people who tell me not to listen to themselves, eh?
Generally I am underwhelmed by women who globally trash feminism. Not that being a self-identified feminist has a hell of a lot of meaning these days–given that Sarah Palin, Maureen Dowd, Catherine MacKinnon and Wendy McElroy all insist that they are feminists, I’m not sure exactly what assumptions about them we’re supposed to be making based on that. So, when women state that they have a problem with specific so-called feminists or specific schools of self-identified feminist thought, THAT I have no problem empathizing with. However–
The third and last session at Sex 2.0 that I attended was the following:
Revisiting Naked on the Internet
My book Naked on the Internet: Hookups, Downloads, and Cashing In On Internet Sexploration was published by Seal Press in 2007. This session will include a panel with some of the women I interviewed for the book; we will discuss what has changed and stayed the same in past two years. Questions include: How has the sense of community in online sexual networks changed since 2007? How have new technologies, applications, and websites (like Tumblr and Twitter) shifted the ways we think about sex online? How have shifts in law enforcement like crackdowns on online prostitution, arrests of teens for making child porn, and the obscenity trials of pornographers affected sex online?
There were four session leaders present–one was the author of the book referenced above and the other three were women that, as she said, she had interviewed for it. I hadn’t read the book, so I was a little worried going into the session that I would have absolutely no idea what was going on. However, I needn’t have worried–they didn’t really discuss the fine details of the book. One thing that did come up, though, was feminism–almost the very first time I’d even heard the word mentioned since I’d arrived at the conference.
Three of the session leaders self-identified as feminists; the fourth did not. Specifically, she self-identified as most definitely not a feminist, and her reasoning was more or less as follows:
“Because, you know, people kept using the word ‘feminist’ as a synonym for ‘awesome.’ (giggle!) Like, I’m a militant awesome-ist!”
Oh, boy. How, er, rebellious of you to so boldly reject feminism. That’s so rare in mainstream society. Especially those icky, oogy second wavers. Really they’re probably all worried that you’re fucking their husbands–! (Direct quote from someone in an earlier session–I couldn’t say if it was the same stellar intellect or not, I did not take special note of the speaker at the time.)
Yes, let’s all hate us on some second-wave feminists. I mean, who needs all this crap: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in employment on the basis of sex? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Executive Order 11375, that expanded President Lyndon Johnson’s affirmative action policy of 1965 to cover discrimination based on gender? The EEOC ruling that sex-segregated help wanted ads in newspapers are illegal, that opened the way for women to apply for higher-paying jobs that were previously only open to men? No-fault divorce? Community property laws? Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co, which prevented employers from changing the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men? Eisenstadt v. Baird, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy includes an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives? Title IX of the Education Amendments that bans sex discrimination in schools? Roe vs. Wade? The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, prohibiting discrimination in consumer credit practices on the basis of sex? Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, forcing employers to cease justifying paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the “going market rate?” Marital rape laws? The Pregnancy Discrimination Act?
One thing I have to give Ann–she did say that when she proposed taking the vote away from women, she meant herself too. I suppose, if she were actually serious, one would have to respect her consistency and lack of hypocrisy in that one area (she still hasn’t shut up and gotten back into the kitchen, though, which leaves her open to remarks of her display of at least a tad bit of hypocritical behavior on all other fronts). So, you bold brave anti-feminist ladies! tell ya what–
You reject, and cease taking advantage of, all that feminism has enabled you personally to take advantage of. I have a nice starter list above, and that’s only the benefits reaped from the sweat, blood and tears of the second-wave feminists–I haven’t even listed what the third-wavers have achieved. You do that, and then at least you’ll stop looking and sounding like a raving hypocrite, and not a very bright one at that. Then, after you’ve lived that life for a year or so, we’ll talk again–and if you’re still giggling over the awfulness that is feminists, then I’ll have to suck it up and admit that there really must be something to the anti-feminist life that I’ve simply overlooked, and I will be absolutely willing to learn what that is at your feet.
Or, if you have a specific problem with specific feminists, or specific feminist schools of thought, you can articulate that–I know, I know, but that requires thought and effort–just like it does for anyone to refrain from making blanket statements condemning a whole swathe of a specific subgroup of humanity–can’t imagine where else or for whom that problem might come up, can you?
…only with feminism can a conference that specifically celebrates feminism in its general description, openly slam feminism. sigh 
In defense of whomever (I w as not at that session), a lot of sex workers have HAD IT with feminism and feminists because attempting to ID as such or even discuss feminism in any way is a long drawn out teeth kicking session where you have no chance of winning and even if you do, the prizes suck. We’re (perhaps irrationally) pissed off at various feminists who have ruined the damn word, and want NO association whatsoever with a movement that harbors such hatred for people like us.
I wouldn’t call being pissed off with specific feminists irrational–as I said in the post itself, that I can completely understand. However, in the next sentence you’re trying to equate specific feminists with the feminist movement, which isn’t accurate. At Sex 2.0, it wasn’t true–the three other session leaders, as I said, identified as feminists themselves–did you want nothing to do with them? Yes, it’s harder to keep feminism separate from specific feminists and/or specific schools of thought of feminism that aren’t sex work-friendly, than it is to just hate on the feminist movement–but that’s not really a good enough reason for going with the latter option. Sorry–or then it must be okay to stereotype and globally reject everyone based on the repellent actions of some in any subgroup of humanity, eh?
I absolutely don’t think that anyone who wants to talk feminism should ever have to (or even ever expect to want to, good God) justify themselves and their choices as some kind of “test” or “credential” before being “allowed” to enter into a feminist discussion. Feminists who require this or they will not treat you with courtesy and/or listen with an open mind to what you have to say? Fuck ‘em. But there are feminists who don’t do that–again, back to those at Sex 2.0 self-ID’ing as feminists. They’re not any less feminist than any other feminist, and not any less a part of the feminist movement. They don’t deserve to be tarred with the same brush.
Lisa: There are plenty of feminists I like just fine. They are very groovy folk. However, it is not those groovy folk who are making policy for sex workers, it’s asshats like Farley, Dines and Jensen. Frankly, I do not care if a person calls themself a feminist, a womanist, or the Empress of South Beach…so long as they are not an asshole…but I absolutely understand why some people, especially sex workers, have SERIOUS issues with feminism and choose not to be real keen on the word. I mean, there are some AWESOME republicans out there too, but those aren’t the ones most people find themselves having to deal with every day now, are they? Having feminists there, even the word feminist in the title? No skin off my nose, but by the same token, I sure expect people to understand why some of us are not all rah rah feminism.
Nicely done, Lisa. I agree.
Let it never be said I am not thoughtful…
Here is why I have a problem with various modes of feminist thought, specifically that which is anti sex industry and anti sex worker in nature:
In the words of actual Swedish sex workers, the Swedish Model has done far more harm than good; it has made working far more dangerous, led to women being arrested for possession of condoms, vaunts statistics on decreased trafficking when in actuality any foreign national arrested for prostitution is immediately deported unless they testify for the state (then they are deported after), has made benefiting from the wages of a sex worker a crime (thus penalizing the spouses and children of sex workers), has led to sex workers being declared unfit parents, and gee, endangered sex workers even further because they are afraid to go to the law in cases of rape, robbery and abuse and, because the johns are criminalized, “the nice ones” are gone, leaving only men willing to risk arrest. It also prevents the women from working together and looking out for each other. Yet, this model is vaunted by many feminists, is being looked at as the way to go in other countries, and everyone is listening to the Swedish Feminists about how great this idea is, yet no one is asking the sex workers.
Individuals like Melissa Farley, Gail Dines & Robert Jensen, college professors all, are making films, writing books, and doing seminars (for pay) on the sex industry- specifically porn- using inaccurate data, stolen research, and wildly inaccurate and slanted sound bites from sex workers, as well as their images, in violation of federal law and without consent of the performers in their stolen footage. When called out upon this, they hide.
Kinky people are routinely told by these sorts feminists that they are unwell, deluded, damaged, crazy, “should kill themselves”, and a variety of other charming things.
Feminists who did the things you mentioned above? Awesome, awesome women. Farley and Dines did not get anyone the vote. The Swedish feminists did not institute no fault divorce. These specific types of feminists harm, harass, violate the law and consent of sex workers, threaten, dismiss, slander, blackmail and do all sorts of other underhanded shit to try and silence or intimidate other people- specifically sex workers…whom they refer to as “prostituted women”- no matter the sex workers opinion on the matter.
Yet these are the ones on TV, these are the ones making law, these are the ones speaking at government inquests, and on the news, and all that…even though most of them have never done the damn job, will not deign to actually speak to those who do, yet sure as hell feel entitled to exploit sex workers whenever and however it suits them to push an agenda. To make an omlette you gotta splatter a few eggs, right? Except hey, those eggs are people…or what, no they aren’t, they’re just whores…who can be used for anything!
I have no love or respect for people like this…and a lot of unease and questions about a movement who accepts them in and counts them amid the fold in good standing. I would not want to, now or ever, be associated with people hell bent on destroying the lives of people like me “for our own good”…hence, I do not use the word.
I have no problem with other people doing so, but hell yes I have my reasons for not doing so, as do others…and guess what, I think we have the right to be angry at various feminists…. then again, I have been threatened and other fun stuff like that by these feminists…so maybe I am just over-reacting.
Right?
Seriously, Ren, as I’ve now said several times, I have absolutely no trouble empathizing with a strong dislike for specific feminists or specific schools of feminist thought–I have similar feelings towards the “Feminists for Life” brigade. Not only do I dislike their ideology, I believe it to be incredibly harmful to women everywhere, and every time they manage to help get some politician elected who is gung-ho about their agenda or they appear in the news being defended yet again as a perfectly legitimate part of the feminist movement,, I see red. My grim feelings towards them even have a personal component–I have a distressing tendency to develop a life-threatening complication in the third trimester of pregnancy, and if these broads had their way, the only life-saving abortion options open to me would be the one I might try to get while dying in the third trimester–at that point there wouldn’t be much in terms of saving my life to choose between that and just trying to carry to term or undergo a c-section. And of course there is the additional salt rubbed into the wound how they characterize all this activity as really in the very best interest of women because we looooove women! Yeah. Spare me the love, oh please do!
My only problem is, there really is no Supreme Feminist Overlord, not even a Supreme Feminist Council, that vets who is considered a “feminist in good standing” and who isn’t. The women you are referring to don’t have any more “real feminist” credentials than any other feminist organization, because frankly there are no such things as “real feminist credentials.” Probably the highest-profile, most “Official” group of feminists is NOW–and NOW doesn’t have an “official position” on prostitution. About as far as they get on that is what the current president of NOW–and I can’t find the quote, so here it is in my best paraphrasing from memory–said fairly recently–”Feminists understand that many women go into prostitution because they are poor and need money. But I don’t think you can ever say there’s one reason why people go into any line of work. You have to talk to the women, there are different perspectives.” That really doesn’t sound like an open-arms embracing of the “sex work is eeeeevil” position to me–does it to you? (NOW is big on opposing sex trafficking, especially of the underaged and socioeconomically disadvantaged, but I think we all are big opponents of that.)
So, but there ARE feminists who get to officially call themselves feminists, who have a measure of political power, who get positive press all the time, who would like to see both me personally and every woman like me literally dead rather than have access to early, elective abortion on demand. I don’t consider this sufficient justification to repudiate all of feminism–feminism is so much more than that. I understand not wanting to associate with specific feminists and feminist schools of thought–but I really don’t understand, nor can I support, rejecting feminism as a whole because of that. And I will argue vigorously against the idea and knock the props out from under it whenever I can…well, I’ll do that here.
I still won’t invade other people’s spaces unless they specifically invite me to do so to spread my opinion. But here, well–my house, you know?
[...]the Swedish Model has done far more harm than good; it has made working far more dangerous, led to women being arrested for possession of condoms,
How can the women be arrested for possession of condoms when, in Sweden, it is not the sale of sex that is illegal, but the buying of sex?
Seriously Lisa, I get that.
I get that there are awesome feminists, and those are the ones you want people to see. Nod nod. We see ‘em. Hell, even KNOW some of ‘em. I think it comes down to a difference of opinion: Some folk think there are too many rotten apples, so to speak, to bother with the word- this is not an insult to the feminists of before who did a lot of awesome stuff- but a comment on how the movement-in our heads anyway- has become fucked up. By the same token, I have no ill will towards people who do NOT think there are too many rotten apples and wear the word like a badge of pride. Such is life with humans. People get pissed when women who otherwise seem to be all gung ho with womens issues and such but do not take up the word- honestly PISSED. Meh, actions speak louder that adjectives IMHO, and for some of us, despite all you keen feminists out there, some have tainted the word enough that we do not want it applied.
I’m one of those people. I also do not think I am an idiot afraid of thinking or in the habit of short changing women who fought for what we now have…but hey, if that’s the criteria and bluff feminists want to put on it, even the keen ones….I’m more than happy to quit doing…well, anything that might be helpful to other women.
And just who would that benefit, exactly?
Is using the word that important? To you, maybe. To me, no. And oddly enough, I’m not going to judge you for it.
Your house, you rules, sure enough- but cutting people from the team because of a lacking word in their self descriptors might loose you some damn fine players.
“for some of us, despite all you keen feminists out there, some have tainted the word enough that we do not want it applied.”
Fair enough, and I would never try to thrust any label on anybody against her will, specially not one I really value, like “feminist.”
But the corollary–that everyone gets to define what IS feminist and then say it sucks based upon their own specific definition–I will argue til my dying breath with their definition if I think it’s the wrong one.
Your last sentence confuses me–I don’t cut anybody from my team (I didn’t even know I had a team
actually) based on whether or not he or she calls himself a feminist. Or anything else, really–I’m basically an atheist, for example, yet I would never reject someone who wasn’t one simply because they weren’t one. I value people based on what they specifically say about themselves and do in the world, not the labels they wear, generally speaking. My objection to the fuss over feminism isn’t about someone’s refusal to wear the label, but about the blackening of feminism in general.
I’ve definitely felt the anger / hurt / indignity you’re writing here, Lisa, particularly when I first saw strong, activist women reject the feminist label.
But.
I think it’s reasonable for someone to say: “Yes, the feminist movement has accomplished many things, some of which have helped all women. But it has nevertheless consistently marginalized the concerns, struggles, and identities of women who are already marginalized by patriarchal society. It might be getting better, but it is nevertheless a movement primarily by and for straight, white, able-bodied, cisgendered women, and that’s not something I want to make part of my identity or activism.”
(I think it’s reasonable to say that in a snarky way, too.)
(Addendum: or what Ren said. :-p)
This isn’t unlike rejecting religion: someone can derive enormous comfort and strength from their church yet still ultimately reject it, because the negative parts of what religion has done and is doing—for and to them, and for and to everyone else—outweigh the positives. They’re not, surely, rejecting religion from a complete account of every possible religious movement or experience they could have had, but that only matters if we care whether they say they’re religious or not.
But, hey, such a person doesn’t denounce the thoughts and actions of every religious person throughout history, either. I’m not religious, but I have no problem with Fred Clark, and though he is religious, I suspect the converse is true.
I do consider myself a feminist, but I have no quarrel with women who can’t see a feminist movement that they can speak and move and act with. I can see that movement, but perhaps that’s just because of where I’m standing. If we’re working together, moving together, acting together, it doesn’t seem much to matter what we call it.
Vi–I agree with you, and Ren, as I said, about self-labeling. My primary objection is not the “I’m not a feminist” statement–my primary objection,and one I don’t apologize for, is the “because feminism sucks” corollary.
Lisa- That’s why I tend to go off the some feminists suck model myself.
Mirror- Good question, but it’s been done. Reading anything written by actual Swedish sex workers will say so plain enough.
But it doesn’t seem like anyone gets to define feminism, strictly. It’s not exactly singular.
Ren–not to make you work on somebody else’s blog
so you are absolutely free to say “hell no do your own research,” but if you do have handily listed somewhere already a link or two to anything written by Swedish sex workers that you’ve already vetted and therefore know is a great source of info on how the Swedish model is impacting their lives, if you could share, that would be awesome. (Again, though–a request, not a demand.)
I’m not Ren, but this is a large collection of critiques (translation quality… varies). She probably has better ones.
Mirror: Laws do not enforce themselves.
Ty miz Vi.
Mirror: Laws do not enforce themselves
I am Scandinavian (Norwegian, working in Sweden and traveling at the moment) and believe me women working as prostitutes are *not* arrested for possession of condoms.
Let us reiterate – the purchase of sex is criminalized not the selling…therefore NO woman can be arrested (suspected of prostitution) for possession of condoms.
Sorry, I messed up the italics.
“Mirror: Laws do not enforce themselves”
My response was to this.
I’m another one of those people, and I have to say I really get tired of the endless “if you don’t identify as a feminist, it must be because you’re ignorant of what feminism is. Once you see that we’re not at all threatening and we all wish there was no wage gap/no rape/no [insert blatantly sexist thing here], you’ll know you too are one of us and put aside this childish delusion of not being one of us.”
I believed that for a while, even spouted it. But then I really started to feel alienated by feminist space, feminist groups, and the policing that I saw in them. I saw “safe spaces” where no one but the moderators, really, were safe to speak at all. When I got mod powers in one community, I was told I could do whatever I wanted with them, everyone else did.
I watched good people, and people far more radical-feminist-ish than me get excommunicated for disagreeing with party lines.
And you know what? I got TIRED. I wanted my life back, and it seemed my whole existence was devoted to fighting this half of my allies and convincing that half over there not to say “bitch,” though I missed saying it.
It just plain got ridiculous to me. So finally, I said — knowing full well what it meant — “I cannot in good conscience call myself a feminist any more. Those of you who know what I value will know I still oppose sexism; those who don’t, oh well.”
And of course, I get — knew I would get — “oh, she just must not KNOW what the word means, like the poor girls these days getting raised to think only uncool people are ‘hairy feminazis.’”
I knew this would happen. It doesn’t make it any less insulting, though.
http://www.isabellalund.com/
there is a link to an english version there somewhere…shes my favorite. Also some good info in studies done by more neutral parties. Personally, as far as law goes, I think New Zealand has the right idea.
Trinity–
For me, it’s not ““if you don’t identify as a feminist, it must be because you’re ignorant of what feminism is.” It’s “If you say that feminism sucks, then I hope that it’s because you don’t know what feminism has done for you–what your life would be like without it.” If you don’t identify as a feminist, and you bother to explain why–not a novel! just, as Ren did herself at the con, state that it isn’t basic feminist equality and advances she doesn’t ID with, just some attitudes that some blocs of feminists have–that, I get. If what you do, as that one session leader did, is ID as outright opposing feminism and do it with a vacuous giggle and an explanation that makes you sound like a twit (“it’s just, they say it’s like AWESOME and like, you know, it just like, isn’t AWESOME”), and then visibly preen when a man or two in the audience heartily applauds you–erm. Well. It does not impress, and yep, makes you look just like a poor girl who thinks only uncool people are hairy feminazis.
Note: All the “you’s” in the above comment are generic “you’s,” not “you Trinity’s.”
[...] Sex 2.0! Part Four: You Can Run But You Can’t Hide, Feminists! at PunkAssBlog.com (tags: sex2.0 sex2.02009) [...]
There seems to be a point where the police (Fouché, Berea) take over from the revolutionists, and it seems the Feminism has passed that point. There was a time where releasing women from the discriminatory policies of the state and it’s legacy in society was the defining element. Unfortunately, it now seems focused on increasing the states role as arbiter of the social order, and advancing catechisms of right examination. The heady days of liberation seem long past.
I think one of the problems has been the deep internalization of the viewpoint that women’s roles and men’s roles are somehow different. This basically conflated the expected aggressiveness of men with the relative freedom and identified freedom with aggression (and then aggression with rape as a further step in the essentialist dichotomy, commencing with “Against Our Will – Men, Women and Rape”).
Once a movement has abandoned the liberation model for the policing one, it is difficult to reclaim it as advancing anyone’s freedom – either within or without this leadership structure. “Feminism” as a word has lost too much meaning. It is more likely to be used to rebrand and repackage authoritarianism then to confer liberty and latitude on the common people.
I do not mean that at some time in the future, the label might not be dusted off and reused anew with more of the original spirit and objectives. The term had largely been abandon from the time of when women gained the right to vote till the late 60′s. The term itself has now been institutionalized but, for the nonce, it seems exhausted of meaning.
Lisa, I read the speaker’s initial statement as saying (a bit snarkily) that a lot of people in her experience wear their feminist identity like a badge and shield, “Nono, I can’t be the problem, I’m a feminist.” That is, it’s a critique of a dynamic within feminist communities. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but that’s what I would expect, particularly given the context.
Is it really the case that saying, “wow, this thing sucks” implies, “in all its forms and despite all its poison’d gifts, I do reject this thing totally and utterly, an I do think that no good can come of such a thing, which is clearly the devil’s work”? I mean, if I say, “American politics suck,” is it really germane to reply, “Ingrate! Think of all the system has done for you! You could have been starving in an Indian village somewhere!”? If I say, “Chemotherapy sucks,” is, “Well, would you rather have died?” actually a great response?
Some negative beliefs about and experiences with feminist movements have to underlie the desire to reject the identity/label, right? If you actually do agree with what feminism is said to stand for—say, “liberation for all women,”—and yet do not feel you can hold the label… well, you’re implying, presumably with reason, that those movements, in your experience, are hypocritical in some way. Saying that you’re fine with people calling themselves whatever but you’d rather they not malign feminism doesn’t make a lot of sense—refusing to call yourself a feminist is a critique of the movement, and feminists in particular ought be willing to listen to it.
Roy: There are many, many feminist movements; your description applies only to a fragment. Liberation from state policies was never, ever the only goal (even, I think, for the most stodgily liberal suffragettes), and complete liberation is still very much a work in progress (an active work in progress). I wouldn’t associate this with an exhaustion of meaning so much as an abundance of it.
Mirror: I am pleased to learn that you are omniscient.
Gee, Roy, I sure love it when men come along and tell women how to do feminism or what feminism should mean.
“Gee, Roy, I sure love it when men come along and tell women how to do feminism or what feminism should mean.”
From what I’ve read of Roy’s comments around the blogosphere, Roy has very strong opinions of just how women should or should not go about “doing” feminism, and just what does or does not constitute liberation for women. And heaven forbid that we little women should have a different opinion than Roy.
Vi, you had to be there and hear this chick speak her, er, mind. She wasn’t the first attendee there to express criticism of feminism and feminists; she was just the one who did it in the most inane way possible. Trust me.
The problem here is…guess what…the word “feminism” has a meaning. ONE meaning. A specific meaning. We don’t get to decide what words mean, randomly, to suit ourselves, I’m afraid–or rather, sure, you can make up any ol’ meaning you want for any ol’ word that exists, but sorry, your “personal definition” of any word is going to be secondary, at the best, to the actual dictionary definition of the word. Feminism means “the theory of the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.” Period. You say you are “anti-feminism,” then you are against the political, social and economic equality of the sexes. Now, you can parse this more finely–you can say, “I don’t like where the mainstream feminist movement is going in regards to issue XYZ and because of that, I don’t publicly identify as a feminist.” Sure–that works. But direct, global statements like “feminism sucks” and “I hate feminism” have only one meaning, I’m afraid, because the word “feminism” has only one meaning. The dictionary one. And I have no time for anyone who says that he or she is against political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
Mmm…Roy, you’re making me nervous; generally the only people who’ve capitalized “feminism” around here previously have been men’s rights activists. You’re not one, are you?
But on to the meat of what you said: You know, I can’t really figure out what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re saying that in any organized movement of reform, stagnation occurs, and the reformers end up simply taking the place of the oppressors. By implication, an endless cycle, with new groups of reform continuously rising up? This may be so; I’m not enough of a student of political science to be able to discuss it. However, since feminists aren’t even close to ruling our country, let alone the world, I really doubt they’ve reached that stage yet, whether or not that’s an inevitable stage that even exists. Give ‘em time, brother.
I’d suggest that the second usage is quite common, and that in particular, someone saying, “I’ve no use for feminism,” or, “feminism/feminists annoy me,” may well be using the second definition.
(Of course, they may also not be doing that; I’m not, in particular, saying that’s what this presenter was doing, if it didn’t seem so to you.)
>men’s rights activists. You’re not one, are you?
They have their points like on child custody issues and such, things that have been holdovers from the “man has job, woman has home” days. Their have been points of commonality between both MRA and womens libbers. Alas, MRA has become resentful of women’s new gained freedoms and rights, and parted ways on any hoped for alliance. Making one gender or another the uniform (and dehumanized) villain is no more beneficial for society than the other.
Movements do not have to rule to change, though. The nature of political power changes those who wield it and who is selected by the system to represent a movement. If Gail Dines gets grants and others don’t, then “government studies” will represent her views rather than those of say, RenegadeEvolution. One wing is propagandized to the exclusion of another and gains increasing power to form the opinions of those who become the future grant approvers – and get future grants. Academia, dependent on the state for funds, finds a way to support the view of those who hold state power, and promote that politiy – even as they pretend to declaim against it.
———
>Gee, Roy, I sure love it when men come along and tell women how to do feminism or what feminism should mean.
Had not Dworkin been in the pay of Reagan and Meese and Dines been in the pay of Bush and Cheney, you might have a point. However, some factions are perfectly happy to be under the direction of men, and reactionary men at that, and without your protest. It sounds like your case is purely faction serving. For that matter, I am curious if you venture the same complaint against Jensen.
MY faction within those who call themselves Feminists, has more in common with me than with you. This would be the Libertarian faction – and certainly an early foe of state dictates: preventing women from entering some careers, forcing pregnant women teachers from their jobs, having reproductive choice etc. Not stuff to be regarded as trifling.
That I am loyal to my faction represents individuals holding common perspectives and supporting each other. I don’t ( can’t) tell them what to think. nor them me. As long as you are willing to sally your male allies, they have no aversion to sallying theirs. Ultimately men’s rights and women’s rights are simply human rights, and human rights can’t spare defenders.
Wait. How, exactly, do you know what we have or have not protested? How is it you presume to know what we believe? Or everything we’ve ever said, here or to our friends and partners and fellow activists?
And what the fuckity-fuck are you going on about in the rest of it? It’s very nice that you’re all friendly with Your Capital-F Feminists, and certainly, libertarian, pseudo-libertarian, and anarchist theorists have been important in feminist theory (problematic, yes, but also influential—Emma Goldman, anyone?), but what the fuck-all does that have to with whether you are either entitled to critique “our” feminism (a vast and unified monolith, of course), or whether your critiques are even remotely factually grounded?
I mean, are you actually saying that feminism is whatever the state says it is? That only feminists who qualify for government funding qualify for their feminist card? Why the hell would you say that? Why the hell would a Libertarian say that? Why, for that matter, would anyone say that?
I think a more-than-cursory glance at the faculties of a number of state-funded universities will show that this effect is probably not totally imagined, but certainly isn’t completely overwhelming. I hear they even hire [L|l]ibertarians. In any case, the same question applies to the academy as applies to the state—who died and gave it total control over the meaning, scope, and policies of social justice movements?
“Feminism means “the theory of the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.” Period.”
I’ve heard too many feminists say that feminism requires belief in patriarchy as the primary social order to not believe them at least a little bit.
Not saying that is necessarily untrue, but it does seem to be a required belief for a lot of feminists to consider a person one.
“and the reformers end up simply taking the place of the oppressors.”
I’m pretty sure that Roy is actually in with the league of individuals who believes that feminists are in fact now oppressing women. Particularly radical feminists who are all the great big meanies for questioning just how liberating and empowering sex work actually is. There may be more to Roy’s objections, but from what I’ve read of his comments, that seems to be his biggest qualm.
First of all, Roy? Put a sock in it. Yeah, the MRAs had a point about child custody… back in the 1970s and maybe into the 1980. But guess what? The only people who think children “belong” with their mothers by default, instead of, oh, say, the most loving parent, would be anti-feminists, not feminists. And I don’t mean “eww, Twisty called me a cum dumpster” anti-feminists, I mean “Bible says bitches shouldn’t be allowed to vote” anti-feminists. Many of whom are… son of a gun… MRAs!
But in, say, the last 20 years what, exactly, have MRAs added to forward the conversation, except, “but men get raped and abused too” which is perfectly true but MRAs never do anything about it; and to blather about false rape accusations, which really do happen but MRAs do… nothing at all; oh yeah, and to say things like “the heady days of liberation seem long past?”
figleaf
See… here’s the thing about getting “excommunicated” for me. I started out excommunicated, right? And the mechanism was “point to penis, say ‘out!’” And that was pretty much it, no feminism for me. And so I’d hem and haw and skirt and append “ally” and all that shit. And then one day about four years ago I said “well, I can’t really call myself a feminist but…” and son of a gun if the prominent, non-denominational, hard-core feminist host of the site say, approximately, “I don’t see why not.” It took me another year to get over it. Seriously.
Point being that excommunication is *old school!* But it ain’t like the Pope where something they said back in the year 830 A.D. has to still be true because the guy who said it is supposed to be infallible. First, because there’s no pope. Not even Andrea Dworkin or fucking Linda Hirshman.
Second because a lot of the “excommunicators” people are feeling excommunicated by appear to be to feminism as PETA is to vegetarianism. Only an idiot would say “well, I can’t call myself a vegetarian because someone from PETA excommunicated me.”
And how come stuff like this only goes one way but others don’t? Nobody says “I’m not a bisexual because Katy Perry and Tia Tequila don’t represent *me.*” Nobody says “I didn’t leave homosexuality, homosexuality left me” because Larry Craig rejects gay marriage.
But somehow because some misanthrope from Texas (Texas!) with a dark sense of humor, a dubious relationship with alcohol, and a codependency on patriarchy that reminds me of the way missionaries needed cannibals, who calls women “cum dumpsters,” who wants to control women’s sexuality in order to achieve political gains, says *she’s* a feminist and everybody else gotta run for the hills?
And somehow people like that get the right to “excommunicate” you but you can’t excommunicate them back? Buckka-bukka-buk-buk-buk.
And then meanwhile people here are saying a big fuck you to Punkass Lisa, and a big fuck off to Amber Rhea, and a middle finger to Jessica Valenti, and a kiss my ass to Susie Bright, and telling them, and Holly of the Pervocracy and Samhita Mukhopadhyay of Feministing and Piny and Zuzu and Jack at Feministe, and hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of other self-identified women and trans-persons (and a few men) they’re wrong to call themselves feminists because they’re so much like you.
Well fine. What do I know? As anti-feminist men tell me all the time, I’m a man so what the fuck business is it of mine? Which I get a lot from other quarters except women don’t usually add “and who cares what them whores and bitches think anyway?” Except I kind of like feminism, I think there’s more to get out of it than 70s-style “under communism everyone starves equally” equality.
Still. Seems to me that most of the commenters here, even Roy, have a lot more in common with even the cartoon version of feminism than with anti-feminism. And it seems to me that from the outside, anti-feminist male perspective Dw3t-Hthr, Ren, Amber, Lisa, Pony and Heart are pretty indistinguishable (i.e. life-support systems for pussies who haven’t learned to keep their mouths shut.) And it seems to me that since either way — feminist or anti-feminist — you’re pretty much going to have to explain which kind of whichever you claim to be you ought to at least side with the ones who are sure the 19th Amendment wasn’t a mistake.
But again, what do I know? My little Y chromosomes, they don’t do so good.
figleaf
I haven’t read all this, I’ve seen enough.
You want to know something about Roy and his thoughts on feminists
Here’s some!
His ideas on men and custody? Gee, I have seen that ON my own blog!
His support of w omen when down? Well gee, I got set on fire and had money issues and who helped me out? Thats right, Roy!
Do I agree with ALL he says? Nah. But when do I do that ever?
Feminism is a social and political movement… people get to have opinions on it….no doubt in Roy’s mind that if he pissed me off , I would kick his ass, just ask him.
Oh, and libertarians? I happen to be one. Gee, fuck that personal responsiblity thing. eh? You want to smoke weed in your house or marry the same sex or gee, be treated like and adult? Who supports that? Libs like me.
God I hate people, now I remember why! Thanks y’all!
Well, let’s see. I support smoking weed in your house if you want to, marrying the same sex if you want to, and being treated like an adult if you are one. I even have a 50/50 joint custody with zero child support arrangement with my kids’ dad. And I’m married to a libertarian, (not to even mention the nice long post I wrote about Ayn Rand a few weeks ago) so I must be able to see something admirable in that point of view, ya think?
But I didn’t give you money, so I guess I’m inferior to Roy and deserve to have my blog shit on for, um, no reason whatsoever?
wtf?
What did I do to get “I hate people and this is why?” precisely? Your POV over here has been treated with nothing but respect and responsiveness, Ren. Hello?
@violet
My comments in rejoinder were directed towards those who advanced and seconded a personal critique – Byrd & Faith. You had not cast in with them and are apparently of a different faction. I haven’t seen in your further commentary too much cause for conflict. It is true that I haven’t further researched you. I doubt that you have much researched me either. Of course, in the latter case, not much more is needed to define me politically than Libertarian.
As you cited
>fem·i·nism (fěm’ə-nĭz’əm) n.
>1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
>2. The movement organized around this belief.
#1 is a pretty crisp definition. I wish that is where it stayed. The ex-Pats etc. would not have elected to exclude themselves were it so.
#2 is more ambiguous. Once elements of movement are spending time anathemizing each other, it is no longer one movement, but several. Then the movement name simply becomes a commodity product on which other polemical and political perspectives slap their brand. The product, in this case Feminism, is modified to suit the needs of the branding entity and often ends up bearing little likeness to the original generic Feminism (which was cheaper and had no toxic additives).
Lisa-
That wasn’t aimed at you or your blog…hell, I have this blog on my blog roll because I generally like it. A few folk here were real quick to jump on Roy as an MRA. He’s not. It’s a tactic used a lot to dismiss any males opinion….sort of like the “you must be a man” thing that is used on some women who offer various opinions. I find such things to be….lazy…in the face of a challenged opnion. And a lot of folk tend to treat libertarians like they are the antichrist or all the same…also lazy and dismissive IMHO.
“My comments in rejoinder were directed towards those who advanced and seconded a personal critique – Byrd & Faith. You had not cast in with them and are apparently of a different faction.”
First of all, you don’t know what “faction” Byrd and I align ourselves with. I personally find it absurd that we even have to have so-called factions.
Second of all, I only spoke up in the first place because you were being incredibly arrogant. You’re still being incredibly arrogant. I have no objections with men being involved in feminism. I simply believe that men need to recognize that their role in feminism is secondary – meaning that their role is not to lead, but to follow what -women- say and believe to be true about what constitutes women’s liberation. In case you haven’t noticed, these discussions amongst women about how to proceed from where we currently stand (we=women) are difficult enough as it is without a man running into the middle of the discussion and telling us we’re doing it wrong.
Faith,
That’s something I’ve heard before in the feminist community, and I’m not sure how I feel about it–my instant, knee-jerk response is that any movement that automatically relegates one gender into a mandatory secondary role is not a movement based upon gender equality. With feminism, of course, it’s obvious why perfect gender equality within the movement is problematic–women have too long a history of being the secondary gender, feminism came into being to address that precise issue, and it would make a mockery of it if women generally were to be found in secondary roles within its infrastructure. However, I must reject out of hand the contention that any random man who expresses an interest in and a desire to dialogue about feminism, must be automatically relegated to a subordinate role solely based upon his gender.
However, that doesn’t mean that his ideas about feminism have any merit whatsoever–all it means is that he shouldn’t be commanded to desist from presenting them because he has a penis. Men should realize, and sometimes seem to have a real problem comprehending the idea, that they do know a lot less about what it’s like to be a woman and what the problems facing women feel like on an intimate basis and how they affect women generally, and they should really take that into account before opening their traps. This isn’t a problem exclusive to men in terms of feminism, though–I’ve seen the same issues with white people in terms of racism, het people in terms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, the well-off in terms of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, etc. And, to rotate this back to having some relevance in terms of our recent meltdown, it’s a problem when non-sex workers start talking at sex workers about the issues with sex work. If you aren’t the marginalized group in question, you do really need to take a humbler stance in terms of discussing issues–you should want to do it, voluntarily, because you should realize that you don’t really know on a bone-deep level what you’re talking about and frankly never may really understand some parts of it. And men, in terms of feminist issues, all too often don’t appear to be able to comprehend that–so feminists have gotten pretty wary of men bulling their way in and telling the ladies what-all they’re doing wrong, eh?
But we really have two choices in terms of our discussion here–we can tell all the men right off the bat to go fuck themselves unless they say exactly and only what we want them to say, or we can make an effort to communicate with them and explain to them why their initial attitude is offputting, clueless and generally just not that useful. Then, of course, if they continue in the vein of clearly not being able to imagine that they might not really get something because their position of superiority in our culture blinds them, we can tell them to go away and try someone else’s patience.
Ren,
Trust me, I don’t use the “MRA tactic” to shut men up. Tbh, I’ve probably had a lot more contact with MRAs than most feminists–I spent about four months last year writing for Glenn Sacks’ blog, til my misogyny meter went into overload. As I told Glenn during one of our multiple phone convos, I actually do believe that there are issues facing the gender male in our society that need to be addressed and I even like to address them. But Srsly–one thing I did get very good at was recognizing an MRA in ten words or less–and while Roy does not appear to be an out-and-out MRA, he does use some of their signature catchphrases and be in possession of some of their conspiracy theorist notions. So it’s not too shocking that he’d be somewhat mistaken for one around here.
Fig, I think I worship at your feet.
Nice to see the other viewpoint expressed so eloquently and with such passion. Thank you, sir.
Eh, I’m libertarian too, though more of a Proxmire libertarian rather than an Ayn Rand, Peter Thiel, or, especially, Alan Greenspan libertarian. Not sure what that has to do with feminism, though, since, for instance, both Ann Althouse and Megan McArdle identify as unapologetic feminists. Which ought to make total sense if you’re a libertarian and familiar with, oh, say, the multidimensionality of persuasion illustrated by the Nolan chart.
But I wouldn’t bail on libertarianism just because the kook version ( has robbed us of more freedom on the margin than Ralph Nader and Catharine Mackinnon combined.
But given that, for instance, Lisa sees little contradiction between libertarianism and feminism why insist they’re incompatible?
Classic example of the contradiction, by the way: Peter Theil, blogging for Cato, says while he thinks everyone should be allowed to vote shouldn’t count for much because women, especially, keep voting in their own informed, enlightened self-interest. Which, last I heard, was about as libertarian as it gets. That doesn’t mean libertarianism is a terrible idea, it just means Peter Theil is a terrible libertarian. So… a handful saying women are bad if they have sex with men doesn’t mean feminism is a stupid idea, it just means people who say that are stupid.
But here’s the deal. Once I put it in those terms I totally get why people have a hard time standing up and identifying as feminists. Because I have a hard time standing up and identifying as a libertarian. But here’s the deal: in both cases it’s not because libertarianism or feminism is bad, it’s that the media keeps picking out the most extremist, monkey-butt, comic-book-villain examples (Ron Paul? Mary Daly? Puleeaaazzzee!) and saying “oh, you’re one of *them* eh?” When if they instead talked to someone in the *middle* of the distribution… of either feminism or libertarianism… they’d make perfect sense. Which, of course, wouldn’t be
“news.”
So… I can see saying one can’t call oneself a feminist if you also can’t call yourself a libertarian. I just balk at the idea that the (universal) existence of shitheels in organizations means one can simultaneously keep one identification but reject the other. I’ll be the first to admit this may be a personal lack of flexibility on my part. But that’s how it seems to me.
figleaf
Oh, and finally, Lisa I was also in the audience and my strong take on the dissenter’s position was the same as Violet’s. Some people really do use “feminist” (or “sex positive,” or “libertarian,” or democracy,” etc.) as an unconsidered, if-I’m-doing-it-it-can’t-be-wrong synonym for “awesome.” Worse, as TrinityVA points out, there’s a similar tendency to say if you’re not doing it my way you don’t belong.
As I mentioned in my previous libertarian/feminism comment I don’t think that’s sufficient to toss over the whole shebang. But I don’t think she was suggesting that, just that she gets really sick of people who use their labels instead of their actions to justify themselves.
Also, I’m… pretty positive she doesn’t equate hairy legs and feminism. That leg-shaving thing has always been a red herring anyway. Early feminists also tended to be hippies, and hippies tend not to shave. Besides, stereotypes notwithstanding there have been “lipstick” feminists since before there was lipstick.
figleaf
“However, I must reject out of hand the contention that any random man who expresses an interest in and a desire to dialogue about feminism, must be automatically relegated to a subordinate role solely based upon his gender.”
I actually agree with this. I don’t necessarily equate secondary with subordinate. I’m willing to listen to men’s perspective on feminist matters; I just get really irritated when a man comes off as knowing more about feminism than, oh, women.
“And, to rotate this back to having some relevance in terms of our recent meltdown, it’s a problem when non-sex workers start talking at sex workers about the issues with sex work.”
I agree with this statement to some degree. However, I also believe that anyone at any real risk of being forced into sex work, or being harmed by pornography, has just as much of a right to speak as sex workers. For instance, I came within a metaphorical inch of entering prostitution. As in having the hotel room rented and the man waiting for me to arrive. Very little would have to change in my life even now for me to possibly wind up having to prostitute myself to take care of myself and my children. I’ve also been harmed by consuming porn and by being a victim of the misogyny that certain men have internalized from viewing porn. Sex workers are not the only ones who get to have a voice on sex work and the potential or definite harms and ramifications.
“any movement that automatically relegates one gender into a mandatory secondary role is not a movement based upon gender equality”
Yes, that.