In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

New Ed Blog

Required to keep a running journal for an education class this semester, I have decided to set up another blog.

Topics covered include our class readings and meetings, and later on in the semester, my final formal educational experience in the classroom before student teaching. I may also cover some experiences substitute teaching, as I plan to do this semester.

I’m not promising anything special (at all), but come by and comment if you’d like.

The Illusion of the Third Wave

From the new issue of Ms. Magazine, the generation gap is an illusion:

It’s no mystery why the discourse that has developed around the waves is divisive and oppositional. Writers and theorists love oppositional categories — they make things so much easier to talk about. Similarities are much more difficult. So, naturally, much has been said and written about the disagreements, conflicts, differences and antagonisms between feminists of the second and third waves, while hardly anything is ever said about our similarities and continuities.

The rap goes something like this: Older women drained their movement of sexuality; younger women are uncritically sexualized. Older women won’t recognize the importance of pop culture; younger women are obsessed with media representation. Older women have too narrow a definition of what makes a feminist issue; younger women are scattered and don’t know what’s important.

Nothing on this list is actually true — but, because this supposedly great generational divide has been constructed out of very flimsy but readily available materials, the ideas persist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

On Being Woman in a “Revolutionary” Group

[7pm: Edits are boxed in for clarification. I stand by everything else.]

This week I went to the first EG Collective meeting for the new year. I neglected to comment on the meeting because I am still gathering information about the group’s goals, commitment, and identity.

There are things about the group that pique my interest, primarily community gifting like Food Not Bombs and Books for Prisoners. In addition, the group emphasizes the use of local businesses and small business districts only, collectives and infoshops, and the visibility of counter-movements that challenge the status quo. These things encourage local activity and the necessary creation of paths alternative to the norm.

After the meeting, I suggested via listserv that we try to get together over the weekend, in part for my own selfish reasons. Most leftist groups in the area that I have participated in have fallen apart due to disorganization, rapid drops in attendance, fleeting interest, or group infighting.

Only a handful showed up to this casual get-together, and by the time I got there, two in particular were lit up like Christmas trees. I got a drink and tried to strike up a conversation about the group’s goals, and also to find out what kind of people I was dealing with. Is a group about blowing up bridges and dams* or about shifting cultural imagination? So, while intrigued by the initial meeting, I needed to gauge the viability of the group and see whether I fit in with the group’s goals. While not explicitly considering myself anarchist by identity, I feel I share enough anarchist ideals to participate.

Last year, Jeanne at Body and Soul wrote on women in countermovements:

For those too young to remember, when things got tense in anti-war marches back then, you’d hear the cry, “Chicks up front!” Women were expected to move to the front of the march, to put their bodies between the police and male marchers, because those leftist men, for all their supposed distrust of the police, assumed that the police and national guardsmen were gentlemen who wouldn’t beat up or fire on women.

They were wrong.

For years, women had felt that their contributions to the civil rights and anti-war movements had been diminished, and that technique, that willingness to use women’s bodies as a shield, was a wake-up call, a radicalizing moment. It helped make a generation of women on the left ask: Are you sure we’re on the same side?

I left Saturday night’s get-together asking that very question: Are we on the same side?

About thirty minutes after I arrived, one of the collective’s men struck up a conversation with me. Rather, confronted me: Who is my favorite theorist? Do I like movies? No? What the hell is wrong with me? Do I read? Do I watch TV? What do I do for fun? So what’s up with my kid? And that was just the beginning.

This surely raised the hair on the back of my neck, but then [one of the drunken pair who is not officially a member of said group] touched on one of my biggest pet peeves when he said, “You watch CSI, don’t you? Man, I’ve got you all figured out.” This began a string of assertions [by the other one who is a member of said group] that I was a) easy to read and b) could easily fit into a tiny box of his own making. I don’t know if it was his drunkenness or a regrettable personality flaw, but I couldn’t tell if his attempts at a verbal beat-down were a subconscious attempt to assert superiority (I presume this comes from being a fresh grad student of philosophy) or a lame attempt at flirtation. My response was cold challenge — something about conversations like this are a dare.

Him: So, is leather your thing?
Me: What do you mean, “Is it my thing?”
Him: Is it your thing? Man, you are so easy to read.
Me: Oh, I see. You wear plaid so you must like Pearl Jam.
Him: Huh?
Me: Man, you are so easy to read.

Him: Have you read any Baudrillard? [he asked after giving me the third degree on my reading habits]
Me: Yeah. Have you read any bell hooks?
Him: No.
Me: You need to.

Him: You don’t care, do you?
Me: Nope.
Him: No, I mean you really don’t care.
Me: Nope.
Him: Man, you are so easy. You wear this bitch attitude…
Me: (interrupts) Maybe it’s just you.

This kept on for nearly two hours, only because I wouldn’t be the first to leave. This was probably stupid of me, but if he wanted to play a game of power and intelligence I would play right along with him. If anything, I wanted to make it clear that not only was I not phased by his educational status or mental library, but also that I would not roll over as a minority member of a group.

After two hours of this business, he finally got up to leave. Two of my friends had come and gone and were waiting for me to join them at another venue. I was disappointed and pissed off and questioning my ability to interact “in solidarity” with the kind of leftist who would end an evening with this kind of good-bye:

“You know what’s cool, you’re not a dumb girl.”

The irony of this situation failed to occur to him — as a member of an ideally non-hierarchal group he was awfully keen on setting up a pecking order. The more I challenged him, the more he seemed intent on setting up and maintaining that pecking order. And yet, the more I challenged him, the more intimidated he seemed to feel, the more he puffed up his chest and name-dropped authors he assumes dumb girls like myself don’t read, and the more he pawed the air for ways to make me feel inferior.

Needless to say, it didn’t work. I’m not easily intimidated by these kinds of arguments in part because I know I can hold my own, in part because he was drunk and I was sober, and in part because I was comforted knowing that nearly every sentence that came out of his mouth was a testament to his own hypocrisy as a man who espouses the abolishment of all forms of oppression while buying into gendered and educational elitism. I can only wonder about the other members of the group, as he is a founding member.

I am reluctant to continue with the group but will attend a few more meetings in an attempt to get a more accurate gauge of this group’s identity. If anything remotely similar to this incident occurs again, I am committed to confronting the group as a whole. Beyond it’s ridiculousness, this kind of behavior runs contrary to the very things for which the group stands.

I can’t find many dissimilarities to this other than the political mind of the aggressor.

* Stereotype! i.e. this is a joke.
Sort of. One argument within the movement, as with most left-leaning movements, is between those who believe that some violence is necessary and those that wish to adopt a non-violent or pacifist stance.

Update: Amanda weighs in.

Rap Music: More On “Take Back the Music”

I have been thinking about the “Take Back the Music” project by Essence magazine ever since I read about it on Ms. Musings.

The first rap song I ever heard was 2 Live Crew’s “Me Too Horny,” soon followed by “Banned in the USA.” I vaguely remember hearing about the “Cop Killer” uproar and calling the local radio station to request it for a Friday night playlist. The DJ laughed at me – I just wanted to hear it and find what all the fuss was about. These were the days before easily accessible mp3s.

I was far too young to be listening to these kinds of messages, but I do remember relishing them for the taboo. Even MTV had yet to embrace rap and hip hop culture except for a nightly hour-long show.

Not having a political imagination, I saw these musical examples as the ultimate in verboten culture. They were bad not only because the adults around me didn’t understand the message, but because most adults I knew could not understand the messengers either. Journalists like Kevin Powell had not come forth to lend legitimacy and a critical lens to the often contradictory messages, and to point out as well that hip hop does not have the corner on misogyny, faux masculinity, prejudice, and homophobia monopolized.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother, a special ed teacher bothered by a young boy who repeatedly said his dad was a pimp. She was concerned about his home life until I explained to her that to call someone “pimp” is slang for the ancient “cool,” perhaps “the ultimate in self-advertisement.” In other words, as distant and strange as this seemed to my mother (and at closer linguistic thought, to myself), the boy really respected his father.

I have always been fond of the artful “fuck off,” and in general, hip hop has always been more efficient at this attitudinal genre than most rock music. In addition, the raw feelings and emotions in much of hip hop are just as powerful as most rock music, if not more so because these come from a more politicized experience. Hip hop came from a consciousness birthed in the ’50s through the ’70s that finally came to a real fruition in the 1980s, a consciousness more realized than that of the average white boy rock star that preceeded the hip hop era. While the roots of major rock artists can be tied to poverty across time, race, and geography, the elements of race consciousness and radicalism were nearly nonexistent in the rock ballad era and atmosphere that was occurring simultaneously to the birth of rap music.

Whether or not today’s hip hop is in a state of arrested development, or primarily controlled by the greedy forces of capitalist hands, is something for the experts to argue, but not I.

Dr. B writes on her love affair with rap music:

I have to admit (not that everyone who knows me doesn’t already know) that rap music is my guilty pleasure. Ok, not even guilty. I love rap music.

Yeah, I figured that out when I went to her office hours one day and found her bumping Ludacris through her kickass computer speakers. She only looked slightly guilty as she turned down the volume.

I was around at the very beginning (ummm…yeah I was a baby) and I have been fascinated by the way that rap and hip hop culture have grown by leaps and bounds. So much so that folk like Eminem wanna claim it for themselves.

Rap music, in my opinion, has always been the music of the revolution. It started out talking about nasty food and bad living conditions in an amusing way and it has progressed to talking about the same conditions in a more violent way. What does that say about rap music? Hmmmmmm…perhaps that what has changed so radically is not the music itself, but the society that it tells of.

Rap music is rhetorical there’s no way around it. It’s telling of a time, a place, and a culture. It might not be your time, place, or culture but it’s somebody’s. Does this mean that I accept rap music and hip hop culture without critique? Ya’ll know better than that!

Rap music is violent and, yes, some of it even glorifies violence. Some rap music is misogynistic, homophobic, and prejudiced (I purposely don’t use racist, but that’s another post). But are these reasons to dismiss rap music and hip hop culture wholesale? Hell Naw!! These are reasons to analyze not only the music, but the culture and the situations that make this music possible hell, necessary.

I’m with Dr. B: I adore rap music. I came to hip hop late, preferring the grunge thing and the punk thing through my more formative years, but having friends who exposed me to a wide variation of hip hop, I finally relented. It was a painful transition, beginning primarily with political dancehall and moving into the rediscovery of the artists I listened to with my friends. Eventually I realized that although I may not agree with or appreciate some of the messages in rap music, the artists were speaking, if not their own, then someone’s truths.

I wrote about my own love affair and the sometimes hypocritical-seeming disconnect between rap music and my politics this summer [slightly edited]:
“‘I’m such a bad feminist,’ I told Bryan the other day as I extolled the finer points of the Ghetto Boyz, one of the dirtier groups in old school hip hip. And should I mention that I just got a bunch of Three Six Mafia? Yup. Bad feminist.

“…As Jason points out, many of the women who hear these songs think, ‘They aren’t talking about me. Holla!’ and drop it like it’s hot, loving the music even as it degrades them. And yes, you can sometimes include me in that group. Why do I excuse it?

“One commentor at Negro, Please says, “…it’s part of a deeper issue with gender in american society. there’s a hypermasculinity present in hip-hop, but it’s not out of sync with the male-as-brut role of american culture.'”

At the end of this post, Lynne Johnson brought up a thought that could be valuable to feminist views of rap music. She says, “i think i take for granted that i’m intelligent enough to be able to separate myself from the music, in a way that i critique and analyze it. there are merits in some misogynist music – believe it or not? why do some of these males think and feel the way they do? what do their lyrics say about their psyche?”

Lynne concludes, to paraphrase, that many of our publicly successful peers have yet to mature. It might have something to do with the mystique of money and power, or being spoiled and spoiling themselves. Some say that all people have a price, that culture and beauty and integrity can be bought. I don’t agree with this one bit, and wonder at times where the artists of integrity and beauty are in hip hop. It’s simple: they are invisible.

Last semester I helped a friend compile a Powerpoint presentation on women in hip hop. The very general categorization of female representation in rap music was broken down into three parts: objects upon whom male sexuality is imposed or acted; those who overtly pander to the male gaze; and those who reject the exploitative modes of sexuality.

The video hoochie rarely holds any agency unless it is to confirm or receive male sexuality and power (and is unfortunately the object present in many of my favored songs). To Ludacris, varying modes of female sexuality is attributed to 1.) naked and 2.) not naked: ” In my videos I try to be versatile: Sometimes I have women dancing, and then, for example, in my Stand Up video, there are no naked women. I don’t mean to depict women in a certain way. The ones who want to shake what their mama gave them are going to do that whether they’re in videos or not.” I personally would urge Ludacris to think about women a tad more deeply than this.

The second category of women we addressed have agency and voice, but act primarily through modes of promiscuous and “nasty” sexuality. This in itself is not inherently bad although it does perpetuate myths of female sexuality, and oftentimes, myths surrounding a supposedly inherent uncontrollable sexuality attributed to blackness. Though we included several examples of mainstream artists, others like Trina and Princess Superstar have remained on the sidelines, serving as comparisons to male counterparts comparably assigned to their rap personas. However, Trina and Princess Superstar have managed to recast female sexuality as just as aggressive and primal as male sexuality is often perceived. This is not a negligible contribution to pop culture. If you didn’t notice, the picture to the right is of a magazine cover featuring Princess Superstar with the caption: “I’m a feminist with my tits out.” That might be the subject of another post.

The last category of women we addressed in the project were those who have rejected the primary role of sex kitten or sex object and concentrate on the embodiment of feminine power and talent, and often hold men responsible for their depiction of women through their own lyrics, while holding onto a positive and powerful sensuality. It seems that most artists find these women admirable peers in hip hop, women like Lauryn Hill, Missy Elliott, and Erykah Badu. These women seem to have fallen off the map in recent years, and other peers of theirs like Ursula Rucker and Sarah Jones get little to no visibility at all outside of diehard music junkies and feminist listeners. Then again, men who promote the respect of women in their lyrical content get little to no air time themselves. Artists like Blackalicious, De La Soul, Tribe Called Quest and others are virtually off of the mainstream map.

This causes me to question whether the problem of women’s visibility is isolated with women alone, but about the backlash against the refusal to play to stereotypical gender roles.

Women who have defied traditional pop cultural roles of sexuality in any genre have been ignored, or relegated to a flash-in-the-pan, Lilith Fair category by most critics. Conversely, men who have broken from the typical misogynistic stream generally do so for only a song or two (like Tupac Shakur and his “Dear Momma” and “Keep Your Head Up” – though I believe Shakur is too complicated a subject to pin down like this), and given a significant amount of credibility for temporarily honoring womanhood between calling them bitches, hoes, and tip drills.

While I would like to see a shift in the popular imagination of women in media culture, I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Hip hop is a microculture, as easily defendable as it is abhorrent to most listeners, and as Dr. B indicates, is indicative of a slice of the United States that is not only revolutionary, but should command our attention.

Upcoming: Choice dirty hip hop downloads for your perusal and discussion.

Emma Goldman Collective

Tonight is my first meeting with the Emma Goldman Collective, a local group that seeks to extend community works and consciousness-raising in the name of progressivism (and obviously, anarchism). After a long conversation with Anne this afternoon on the topics of exceeding feminism, embracing various forms of progressive living, and the need for an active local movement, I’m itching for some way to actually enact my goals and ideals in the community.

Updates if anything good happens.

Thursday Feminist Reading Material

• Ayelet of Bad Mother talks about her own 2nd trimester abortion:

To be relevant to the contemporary world, to be valid, the pro-choice movement must listen to pregnant women. We must listen to the woman and value her words. A woman who is unwillingly pregnant, whose pregnancy at, say, 10 weeks, is nothing more than a source of desperation, of misery, knows one truth and we must respect it and honor it. A pregnant woman whose 4 month-old fetus has Down’s Syndrome knows another truth, and we must respect that, too. A pregnant woman whose batterer kicks her in the stomach, trying to end her baby’s life, knows another truth. Respecting the truths of these pregnant women allows us to deal in shades of grey, to liberate ourselves from the straitjacket of the black and white.

• Rivka at Respectful of Otters writes on the Texas reproductive rights laws that prevent those under the age of eighteen from getting reproductive health care of any sort without notification to the parents.

• Hugo Schwyzer discusses male circumcision and female circumcision (and the reasons primarily behind MC) and an interesting discussion ensues.

Christine of Ms. Musings discusses the move by Essence magazine to review the role of women in popular rap music. More in the CS Monitor.

• At DED Space, Diane gets abuse for insisting that rape and sexual assault exist at all.

• Rad Geek reveals, for the umpteenth time, that Andrea Dworkin does not believe that all heterosexual sex is rape. Read it already, people.

• Volsunga discusses age ranges in relationships, comparing the teen/adult relationship to the adult May/December ego boost.

Fred Vincy addresses the recent Florida ruling that adoption of children by homosexual partners is undesirable, and thus, is illegal.

Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist

It’s back! That’s right, the horrible man-hating feminist so angry she cannot function in the real world with even the likes of the chivalrous Neil Cavuto:

Ladies, if a guy holds a door open for you, do you like it, or feel patronized by it?

The reason I ask is that I did just that for a woman, leaving a building Thursday night. She was not pleased.

“Do I look paralyzed to you?” she asked.

I was so taken aback that I didn’t know what to say, or even what she was saying herself.

She went on to explain how I had just earlier stepped out of her way on the elevator to let her off.

I just assumed it was the gentlemanly thing to do. I guess I’m a bit old fashioned. But she was not and she clearly wasn’t into “gentlemanly.”

When I recomposed myself, I had to follow her.

“Excuse me,” I asked — now feeling every bit of my offended macho Italian roots — “but exactly what bug got up your butt?”

“Treating me like I have to be coddled,” she said.

“By opening a door?” I asked.

She went onto explain the door thing was part and parcel of a bigger thing: An attempt by men, she said, to make women feel like they’re lesser.

It made me think and it made me worry.

So let me ask you, ladies: Do you find it offensive when some big klutz like me opens a door that I’m patronizing you, or, in the case of this young woman, “offending” you?

Roxanne nails it in the comments of Michelle’s ASV, who commented on the story while buying into the myth.

Roxanne says:

I think Cavuto is making that story up because he was having a dry writing day. I consider myself a feminist and I’ve never said or thought anything like the situation Cavuto describes. And I’ve never heard of a woman in real life doing that, either. It’s all part of a feminazi mythology, one part in a series of urban legends that get repeated over and over until people believe that it actually happened. Next he’ll be writing about children being abducted in KMART, hair dyed black in the bathroom, and sold on the black market in Mexico.

I don’t think opening a door for someone should have anything to do with gender. If you’re at the door first, you hold it open. Duh.

Whoever gets there first opens the door. It is as common a courtesy as saying please and thank you, and I don’t even care what you have in your pants.

The biggest clue to Cavuto’s “dry writing day?” He doesn’t even have to mention the word “feminist” or “feminism” but I’ll bet nearly all of the commentary he received on his show was on the nature of feminism and the death of chilvalry. Even Michelle neglects to explicitly mention feminism, except through the pejorative “feminista,” but nearly all of her comments on her post address, you guessed it, feminism.

My favorite part is where Rox’s legitimacy is questioned due to anecdotal evidence, countered with, “Oh yeah? Well this happened to me once, so Cavuto is telling the truth and you are not.”

Extra special highlights include the spots where readers suggest that all the young lady in question needs to do is a) get laid, and b) shave her moustache.

I sprained an eyeball from rolling them so hard.

Guardian: Debbie Stoller Interview

Debbie Stoller is interviewed by Zoe Williams for the Guardian on the knitting wave, feminism, men, and more:

In person, she elaborates: “Women’s work is never done, and it’s drudgery, and it’s tedious, and you always have to do it again the next day. But you know, here at Bust a lot of the work we do is drudgery. It’s all work. Taking care of the home, or putting out a magazine, or picking up the garbage, it’s all work. Even this job, which is my dream job, is not always so satisfying. This is the thing that I feel 1970s feminists got really fucked-up in. That was the aim of any life – you can become president, you can become anything you want to be, and any fulfilment you’re going to get, as a woman, will be to do with the job that you have.”

And she’s right – I think this might be the core battle in modern feminism. The status of paid employment as an elevated pursuit that would provide self-expression and self-respect, regardless of its nature, held total sway at a time when women were fighting to get into the workplace. Now that we’re in, that ideal – of perfect fulfilment through work – very rarely obtains. Surveys in this country and in America show women often saying that they’d rather be at home with their kids after all. Data points like that are used more and more often by the Daily Mail, by far-right pundits like Ann Coulter, by rightwing, mainly American, academics, as evidence that the feminist revolution was a terrible mistake. Conclusions that would have been heresy in the 80s – women were betrayed by the quest for equality, work just makes them unhappy, they would have been better off at home – are trotted out with alarming shamelessness now. There are far too few people like Stoller, pointing out the obvious – some women find work a grind because that’s exactly what it is. Men find it a grind as well.

The secret to gender parity doesn’t lie in shunting women from one arena of toil to another, then back again; it lies in everybody being able to range freely between one probably partly boring pursuit and another, according to his or her ambition, without certain activities being irrationally denigrated for their traditionally female associations. This point needs to be made, trenchantly and repeatedly, and knitting is as good a way in as any.

This excellent read via Dr. B.

Feminist Blogs

I am currently rearranging my blog links into categories, one of which is “feminist blogs.” I am including not only those people who write on feminism, but also those who declare themselves expressly feminist, pro-feminist, womanist, etc.

If, when it appears I am completed, you would consider yourself a blogging person who falls into this category but is not included on this list, let me know here in the comments. Male bloggers, please give me permission to include you, as I know some men occasionally have issues with the label. Conversely, if you find yourself on the list and don’t think you should be there, plase let me know. No backlash, I swear.

AND, if you are a feminist blogger who is not already included in my list of links, drop me a line and I’ll include you. Link for all!