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

Start Your Decade Off Right! By “Rebranding” Feminism!

Hey, you guys! It is almost a new year! A new DECADE, even. That is a big deal, right? And, as we approach our bright and shining future, it’s time for us to engage in some serious thoughts. Thoughts about Feminism! Where has it been, where is it going, at what point do we just get around to establishing that the true point of Feminism is and has always been for me to have my own rocket car, etcetera. And who do we trust, in this hour of futuristic thought, to guide us on to Feminism’s new era?

Probably not Nicky Loomis of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, that’s who! Oh, I know, I know. “Nicky Who-mis of the Where Where WHAT, now?” That is what you are saying. And I sympathize! I’ve never heard of this person, either! But Nicky has written us a letter, about our movement, and the many faults Nicky happens to perceive therein. And since it is addressed to us – to ALL OF US, in fact – I think we should give it a fair hearing. It begins:

DEAR Feminism,

See? It’s for you!

Hi. How are you?

God damn it, Nicky Loomis of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU NOT TO CONTACT ME. It’s over! Let it go!

Guess what? Another decade is done and people are starting to wonder where you have gone.

Um, fucking EVERYWHERE, I think? Did you try Google? Did you look for the explosion of independently-run and/or corporate-backed feminist media that has been one of the better developments of this past decade? Like: there are some big places we hang out on the Internet, really. Did you try Shakesville, Feministing, Pandagon? A website entitled, last time I checked, “Feministe?” These are some of the easier names to plug into your Google machine! They’re not even the only names I know or the only names I seek out because they’re continually attached to work where I can find Feminism hanging out and chilling and entertaining guests; they’re just names that are substantially easier to know about or have heard of than, say, “Nicky Loomis!” Did you try the feminist or feminist-friendly offshoots of major for-profit media? DoubleX, Broadsheet, Jezebel? You can find Sarah Haskins on the Internet too, I hear! She has a little TV show, I recommend it!

Also, do you read things that are printed on paper? Such as the print-media zine-era survivors and thrivers, like Bitch? The second-wave stalwarts like Ms.? The many feminist contributors to your more progressive magazines and journals? Feminism can be found there, too! And also at bookstores. Do you go to bookstores, Nicky Loomis? You can find Feminism chillaxing in a lot of books, at a lot of bookstores, in the sections devoted to Feminism! Some of the writers associated with this general Internet milieu can also be found in these “book stores!” And some of the writers have been around longer, longer than the Internet itself, making friends with and introducing people to and supporting Feminism, and their books and articles and the results of their hanging out with Feminism and helping Feminism out are fucking all over the place! It’s crazy!

Also, here is another place you can find Feminism: in real life. Did you check real life, Nicky? I recommend it! Maybe if you look around – like, at protests and women’s shelters and some of your more major feminist organizations and in your office and in your family and in your general life environment, those are fun places to look – you can find Feminism and feminists there, too! A lot of them, in fact!

Did any of this register for you, when you were writing your little letter? Like, this whole thing of Feminism entering the national conversation yet again, and being adopted and researched and learned about and participated in by so many people, and basically being a whole lot bigger and more visible and more accessible right now, at the end of this particular decade, than it has been in years and years and years? It’s all possible to learn about, via an entertaining buckets-o-fun process I like to call “knowing a damn thing before you sit down to write!”

Or not. Anyway, now that we’ve established Nicky’s in-depth research and expertise relating to the whereabouts and nature of Feminism, time to field some suggestions!

Feminism, it’s time for you to rebrand. Think of me as your Oprah on makeover day.

HOW TO IMMEDIATELY ENDEAR YOURSELF TO FEMINIST WOMEN IN ONE SENTENCE OR LESS: Assume they will all go buck-wild crazy with enthusiasm if you mention “Oprah” and a “makeover.” Works every time!

A lot has changed since you were coming up in the world. First things first: the name has got to go. I know, I know, you like it; it’s important to who you are. But think about what it did for Puff Daddy and get back to me.

Oh, yeah. I remember when Puff Daddy was calling himself “Feminism.” That was weird! But, hey, maybe we can ditch the whole “Feminism” moniker! I read about it in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, so I’m pretty sure it’s a good idea. I recommend that we now dub our noble movement, “Hot Sexy Wet T-Shirt Tits for Beads Jell-O Shot Party X-Press.” You know, for branding purposes! Or “Girls Gone Wild.” Is that one taken? Maybe we could just call it, “Dudes, Cut That Bullshit Out Right Now, Or I Will Make You.” That is the phrase most likely to flash across my mind, right before I engage in some Feminism. We’ll work on it, Nicky! We will, as you suggest, get back to you!

You remember how in 1983, Gloria Steinem published “Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions,” a collection of stories chronicling her journey as a feminist so far? I was zero years old.

Wow. I was one! I was really into Bert and Ernie, if I recall. I insisted that Ernie was a girl, because I liked him, so he had to be. I shoved peas up my nose sometimes and I thought broccoli was baby trees! Oh, and also? I would have had the good sense not to publish this article. Some of us mature faster than others, is the moral here.

Steinem suggests “bottom line” regular acts to support your cause: “Writing five letters a week to lobby, criticize, or praise anything from TV shows to a senator; giving 10 percent of our incomes to social justice; going to one demonstration a month …”

Feminism, this is simply too much! Many women in my generation like watching TV because it has gotten better.

Oh, my God! I LIKE WATCHING TV, TOO! We have SO MUCH IN COMMON! And I agree: in recent years, there has been more TV with feminist overtones or undertones or just general tones, coming from folks like Joss Whedon and Tina Fey and all the many folks on Mad Men or Battlestar Galactica or whatever, and even the misogyny of some TV – though not gone, and not un-appalling – is more widely called out than it once was, and people seem to seek to avoid that, simply because an increasing number of people feel comfortable saying that something is “misogynist” and that misogyny is a good enough reason not to support it. I wonder if all those ancient withered feminists of ’83, writing letters to praise the good stuff and criticize the bad, creating a culture where it was totally acceptable to view pop culture “through a feminist lens,” as the saying goes, had anything to do with that at all???

No. Pshaw! Gloria Steinem, contributing to the benefit of the culture? Couldn’t be! She’s just so old! And acknowledging that this made a difference back then would imply that it could still make a difference now! Which is just plain wacky.

Feminism, you are kaleidoscopic in the reactions you cause.

To some, you stand for equal rights in the workforce; to others, you’re about babies, marriage or sexual freedom. You’ve become about as tough to define as America itself.

Feminism is especially tough to define if you don’t read any feminist writers, or seek out any feminist expertise, and if you rule out engaging in any feminist activism! Just saying. Or if you insist that a movement dedicated to bettering the lives of over fifty percent of the human beings on the fucking planet have only one priority (again: getting me a rocket car is a good one to pick, ladies) which is universally agreed upon and espoused by all of its members! Just saying. Oh, what’s that Nicky Loomis? You have a final point?

Even in the workplace, “women aren’t afraid to be women anymore.”

Huh. That’s awesome! Because, you know, there have been times when I’ve been totally afraid to be a woman. Like: walking down the street, late at night, alone, when being a woman means some dude might rape me. Or going to a bar and having to keep an eye on my drink, because being a woman means some dude might roofie and rape me. Or basically always having to think about what I’m wearing and who’s around and what my exit strategy is and whether my friends (also women) and I are safe from being roofied and raped, or raped without the aid of roofies, which might indeed happen to us because we are women. I’m kind of afraid to be a woman at those times! Or when my ideas and work are dismissed by men, because being a woman means that I’m not cut out to be an intellectual equal, and being an openly feminist woman who talks about being a woman and seems totally not ashamed of that fact means that I’m either frivolous or a fringe-dwelling wack-job. That happens, and makes me scared to be a woman! Or when I’m patronized by men, or regarded as a “bitch” because I advocate for myself, or taken advantage of because I fail to advocate for myself, or sexualized and fetishized in a creepy way that by no means depends on my consent or participation, which can happen in lots of places – an office, maybe! It’s happened there – because I’m a woman. When a boss hits on you, or when a man addresses his female employees as “girls” and treats them like particularly stupid five-year-old children: that’s kind of scary. Because of the woman thing. You know when my mom was probably afraid to be a woman? When my dad beat her up a whole bunch. I was scared to be a woman, too, because I got to see it. When I worry that I won’t get jobs, or will be taken less than seriously at my job, or will have to enact some unsatisfying and impossible compromise with my job, due to the fact that I can (probably!) have babies and will be perceived as (or will be) the parent most responsible for taking care of any babies I have, I get scared to be a woman. When issues that are kind of super-important to me, like having access to birth control and abortion, get kicked off the table by the “liberals” who are supposed to support me because those trivial women’s issues are not worth fighting over: I get scared to be a woman around those times. When I’m engaged in the constant negotiation of disclosing my sexual history or tastes, and in the more-or-less mandatory sexualization of my body, constantly trying to negotiate between “stuck-up ugly bitch who won’t put out” and “dirty whore,” I get scared to be a woman, because that can affect everything from my job to how friends and family treat me to how people think it’s appropriate to interact with me on the street, and can be utilized as a justification for any number of crimes and shitty acts enacted against me, up to and including the aforementioned rape and beating-up-a-whole-bunch. And when people act like all of these things that might happen to me are not real issues, are either trivial or not worth thinking about or funny – a lot of people think they’re funny, I’ve gathered – I’m scared to be a woman. Really, REALLY scared! I’m scared to be a woman pretty often, actually, now that I think about it! But, hey, as long as those things have stopped happening – have they stopped happening, Nicky? Surely, with your research skills, you can fill me in – let’s ditch the fear of being women! NO FEAR, like the t-shirt says!

Of course, I would still be a woman, whether I was afraid of it or not – I can’t precisely turn that shit on and off like an iPod – so for some reason getting over the “fear” of being a woman seems slightly less important than making sure there are fewer things for women to be afraid of. But, you know, sure: let’s work on making women not afraid to be women any more. My first suggestion? Make them less afraid to be feminists.

[Cross-posted at Tiger Beatdown.]


59 thoughts on Start Your Decade Off Right! By “Rebranding” Feminism!

  1. First, let me applaud you on picking such a wonderful article to pick on! This guy was just asking for it…..

    I just wish you could have given it back to him like he deserved.

  2. Duuuude. Yes. This post was hilarious… I wrote something similar on my own blog when I heard a local Top 40 DJ say that feminists have had nothing to say about Chris Brown… because we think he’s cute. What?! Where have you been? Under a rock for a decade?

    In this past decade, I’ve become a feminist, and a good chunk of the reason why was because one of my LJ friends linked to an article on Feministe. On the internet. Which the author of that article is clearly familiar with.

    Although I can say one thing… feminism seems to be nonexistent in my office. This afternoon, a woman I work with said, completely unironically, that she believes that women belong in the home (how she justifies her 13-year career with our company, I don’t know). The only person other than myself that even closely resembles a feminist is my male supervisor.

  3. This blog post is, quite on its own, proof that feminism is fucking awesome just how it is. (You know, in the many, many varieties it comes in.) Brilliantly done.

  4. There’s a name for these dudes. Mansplainers*. They are a subspecies of troll. And they need to be mocked as mercilessly as possible, just like this, at every opportunity. Thanks for providing an example for the class, Sady. You get an A!

    *Men who explain things women already known to said women, up to and including feminism, childbirth, what women should do as a gender etc. etc. They are always wrong. Flee them.

  5. Human Rights! It is all about human rights. Feminism is a subset of a human rights movement. Sexual preference is a human right. Adequate health care is a human right. Being paid a decent salary is a human right. Religious tolerance is a human right.
    Being a self-righteous so called feminist is a denial of human rights.

    Overthrowing Capitalism for a more decent economic system is a human right. It is a moral obligation!

  6. Sady, you are the most sarcastic person of all time, and I say that with sincerity and not sarcasm.

    You are still my hero! Feminist Heroine, let’s say!

    (I was also born in 1983 and I thankfully would not write such a thing)

  7. @Shelly: Nicky Loomis is, judging by the use of words like “we” and “us” in the article (because you KNOW I’m not going to read every other Nicky Loomis article in print, YOU KNOW IT) a lady! Which makes it all the more fucktastical! It’s like a bottomless pool of Somebody Needs To Have A Job Other Than Writing, which just gets deeper and deeper the more you look at it.

    You know what else is true about Nicky Loomis? She has your last name! That is probably an unlucky coincidence! I’M KEEPING MY EYE ON YOU, FELLOW LOOMIS. Nevertheless.

  8. This is amazing! So much of what I feel all the time is summed up, particularly in that penultimate paragraph about why one might be scared to be a woman. That makes me happy – probably sad, as well, that it should be true – but happy that we’re fighting!

  9. … the first time i actually felt compelled to comment…: what a brilliant piece – thank you :-)!

  10. LOVE.

    Esp when the ruler of research references Puff Daddy. But think about what it did for Puff Daddy and get back to me.

    Hasn’t he changed his moniker several times since then? (P. Diddy, Diddy) With the result that people are still calling him Puff Daddy?

    In 1983 (age 5) I was planning to become the first woman president. My aspirations have changed, but they were there because of feminism. For that I am grateful, and prefer to stick with calling a rose, a rose. (Besides – is she suggesting we call it Fem Momma? F. Mami? Somehow, I just don’t think following Diddy’s lead is the best advice….)

  11. If *she* wants to do something for feminism- *she* could start by, oh, shutting up until she’s done some research. Or shutting the heck up for life. Yeesh, this is what passes for newspaper writing? This drivel wouldn’t make it in a student paper.
    Sorry for the rant, but if there’s one thing I hate, it’s women making fools of themselves in public.
    (Asterisked, cause I still don’t know.)

  12. Sady, I really admire your ability to take a jumping-off-point as completely shitty as that article and not only tear it apart, but simultaneously construct an essay that stands on its own and is well worth reading for its own sake. Reading this I moved from laughter to pitying laughter at the foolish author of the original article to (by the last paragraph) feeling righteous outrage and determination and cheers for feminism, and by that point I’d kind of completely forgotten about the stupid article that dumbshit wrote. They give you cookies, right? You deserve lots of cookies.

  13. Scared to be a woman… indeed. That was one of the best repartees I’ve read in a long time. Kudos.

  14. Who is this Nicky Loomis person? And why is such an obscure person telling feminists to rebrand when we don’t even know who Nicky Loomis is?

    Irony. It’s what’s for breakfast.

  15. Sady – i loved the way you just went in there and tore shit up like a regular badass. i’m a women’s studies minor in university; i really appreciated everything you wrote in this article. it was funny, thought-provoking, and even vulnerable toward the end. you are so very fucking right with every word you write (speak?) so three cheers for you, and thank you thank you thank you

    riot grrrl’s not dead!

  16. WOW!!!! I must bow to you the queen of snark! This is what I hope to accomplish one day with my own blog. I come close a few times but never quite reach this level. I am impressed!!!! I will be providing a linkback to my blog if that is okay with you? Again I say, I can only hope one day to reach this level!!!!

    Petunia – Feminazi (according to those lovely men at antimisandry and stand your ground anyways lol)

  17. Some men will base their interpretation on a very shallow understanding of the complete picture. I think to really understand femininity and the restrictions of gender roles a person has to have experienced a sense of extreme vulnerability in their own life, combined with a healthy dollop of cognitive dissonance. As a male feminist, I understand the skepticism that many women feel and on a personal note, the hardest person to convince that I really got it was my own girlfriend.

    What makes it so difficult to attract men and male allies to feminist circles is that the current conception of masculinity put forward does not encourage introspection and with it the capacity to examine gender beyond anything more than a reactive sense. Women seem to be always in the process of second-guessing their own femininity. By contrast, when masculinity is perceived to be under attack, the same tired old motifs of machismo resurface are re-emphasized.

    What I do know is that it’s crucial to find ways to not talk over each other. Though this response is dead on and quite cleansing, it is unlikely to enlighten.

    Indeed when I first observed feminist circles, I took great offense when men were called out for their opinions and their behavior. It wasn’t me saying, “How dare these women not keep to their place!” It was more a kind of natural response to stick up for my own gender which was rendered even more perplexing because there is much about masculinity that I dislike based on my own past history. That’s stumbling block number one. I’m not suggesting we need to stop pointing out instances of oppression, but rather to highlight why we can’t get more men to sign on and fight with us.

    To draw a parallel, conservatives will frequently misinterpret those of us who are critical of U.S. policy under the same terms. To them, any criticism of America or American society, no matter how constructively intended must obviously be destructive and treasonous. But when they do this, they completely forget the concept of tough love. And returning to gender expectations, when the concept of being a man is predicated on a desire to not be “female” and beholden to emotional introspection, then we end up with stalemate.

    A man avoids having to question whether or not he is masculine enough and find much reinforcement to encourage it. A woman can’t seem to avoid contradictory and mixed messages that encourage her to obsess about whether she is feminine enough. We can and should continue to deconstruct why this exists, but reaching for a solution would be best for everyone, regardless of gender or identity.

  18. I’m pretty sure that this particular Nicky Loomis is someone who I went to elementary school with (if she is indeed from the San Gabriel Valley and born in 1983, it is highly likely that this is the same one, which is kind of exciting). The elementary school we went to was an expensive, private prep school, full of very economically privileged kids. I guess what I took away from this article is that I’m really glad that I’m able to recognize and acknowledge my own relative privilege within the context of a wealthy, white, heterosexist, patriarchal culture in my country of origin. My identity also doesn’t make me any less feminist, or any less aligned with and ready to fight for feminist causes, or any less able to see how that dominant culture subjugates other groups of women that I may not economically and ethnically belong to.

  19. CNW: A car that runs on rocket fuel. Alternatively, one with a jet assisted take-off unit (although that’s a good way to gain a Darwin award.)
    On topic: Yay sarcasm!

  20. Speaking of feminism, Oprah and makeovers, I saw several tweets today mentioning this blech-worthy article by Karen Salmansohn on Oprah.com on replacing feminism with “feminine-ism”. ::gag:: The whole thing deserves some sort of snarky commentary, but a single blog comment would hardly be sufficient.

  21. (And now I see that the article I just linked to is actually from November. Thanks, Oprah.com, for not posting timestamps on your articles whatsoever!)

  22. I read this blog all the time, but I’ve never commented. I just wanted to say this post was incredible. Thank you!

  23. Hi Sady, that was a wonderfully snarky and biting article ripping apart that blog entry. Rebranding feminism? No, I don’t think so. It’s still needed today as much as ever, and no one could find further proof of that than the recent Health Care Bill failure and how women’s concerns were swept off the table to appease the majourity of the women-haters in Congress.

    I’ll do my part on this end, viewing popular culture with a feminist lens, because in the end, to me, Feminism is about respect, and there still doesn’t seem to be enough of it regarding the other half of the human race.

  24. I’ve been blogging about “what is feminism,” too. Loved your piece but I got bogged down in the exclamation points! Darnit! Otherwise, well done. 🙂 <—-said with an emoticon in case I come off as too abrasive or critical or condescending. Not that being a woman is complicated or anything. 🙂

  25. “PEOPLE are wondering where you’ve gone”–huh?
    As Lina Lamont said in “Singin’ in the Rain”, “PEOPLE?! I ain’t PEOPLE!!”

  26. codeman38: How scary. I read bits of it out loud to my boyfriend – because that column is just begging to be a comic monologue – and his contribution was that “feminine-ism” can be the new “truthiness.” This is why I love the guy, even if he’s not a “feminine-ist.”

    It is fun to say, though. “Feminine-ism.” Femininininin…

  27. Sorry guys, she’s right — feminism does need a makeover.

    I don’t agree with her on the type of makeover, but yeah, feminism definitely needs one. Pointing to BLOGS as an example of how feminism is alive and well is a little silly, considering that a lot of the issues discussed in the feminist blogosphere are very, very rarely talked about outside the feminist blogosphere. And frankly, just about every crackpot cause has blogs.

    (Every time someone uses “lame” on a feminist website, someone calls them on ablism. I have never seen or even heard of that happening IRL.)

    The fact is that when you bring up feminism to an average group of people, even women who will accept the label often make a point of saying that they’re not one of THOSE feminists, because unfortunately THOSE feminists — and yes, unfortunately, THOSE feminists are not entirely a myth — have taken over the public perception of feminism.

    I decided to conduct my own poll. I interviewed medical students, law students, hairstylists, black, white, Catholic, Jewish, gay, straight, tan and pale – women and men in their 20s. All 15 or so agreed to talk about you, only if I promised not to use their names. I decided to just say the word “feminism” without leading it in any one direction to see how people responded.

    “What do you mean by feminism?” was the response of half the women and men I sampled.

    You can’t pretend she doesn’t have a point.

    The “women aren’t scared to be women” thing is icky and untrue. Sady took it out of context and made it about violence, when it was clearly referring to displays of “femininity” in the workplace. You don’t have to be “feminine” to be a woman, and yes, women are still afraid to be “feminine” in certain ways because that is seen as weakness.

    So yeah, she’s right about the rebranding and wrong about everything else, and it would be nice if people remembered that snark is not actually a legitimate argument.

  28. Who is this person? Oldies like me know we’ve come along way and have a long way still to go, especially us adoptees, many of whom don’t have their rights.

  29. Natalie: What woman in her right mind would chose to be weak? I’ll admit to a mile-long weakness for pretty things- but I wouldn’t wear ’em at work or in public (most days.) What’s wrong with wanting to be strong?

  30. Natalie – Okay, let’s look at women being scared to be women in the context of the workplace. What is meant by “being a woman”? If it means wearing girly things and high heels, that’s misleading, because being a woman =/= wearing girly things and high heels. And if it means “not being rough and strong and like a man,” that’s tough, too, because there are plenty of women who truly are strong and outspoken without putting on an act to impress the guys.

    There are still workplaces, particularly in male-dominated fields, where wearing makeup and skirts and heels means you won’t get taken seriously and may even be a target for harassment. And there are workplaces where being a strong-willed and non-shit-taking woman means you’re seen as a shrew and ignored (even when those qualities are admired in men). So whether you’re looking at physical safety or success in the workplace, there are still times that a woman has to be cautious about how she “performs” womanhood.

  31. (Every time someone uses “lame” on a feminist website, someone calls them on ablism. I have never seen or even heard of that happening IRL.)

    Oh, well, then, you know it’s not a big issue then, because the mainstream hasn’t taken notice of this. Duly noted! Thank you so much for schooling us.

    The “women aren’t scared to be women” thing is icky and untrue. Sady took it out of context and made it about violence, when it was clearly referring to displays of “femininity” in the workplace. You don’t have to be “feminine” to be a woman, and yes, women are still afraid to be “feminine” in certain ways because that is seen as weakness.

    Women are afraid to be “feminine” in the workplace because of sexism–women and femininity are seen as weak and bad. Yet when feminists address this, we are manhating shrews.

    Look, I have zero patience with this circular crap. I’ve heard this argument more times than I care to count over the past 40 years. People have tried to rebrand, and still run into hostility, because questioning the status quo threatens the privileged. We can “rebrand” all we want to, but that won’t change.

    I’m not concerned with making myself more likable for misogynists, who are not concerned with making themselves likable for me. I’m more concerned about actual social and economic justice.

    So yeah, she’s right about the rebranding and wrong about everything else, and it would be nice if people remembered that snark is not actually a legitimate argument.

    Hey! You know what would be really nice? If you actually read Sady’s argument instead of lecture her on her tone and act as though she didn’t make any points.

  32. Yes, yes. Feminism needs re-branding! New Marketing! It’s gotta SELL SELL SELL, you guys! Because the BEST way to get more human rights is to turn ideas&people into object-things for buying&selling! Every feminist knows a palatable public image is the *exact* thing needed to help women not worry so much about maintaining a palatable public image! So maybe they can worry about other life things & not have to decide which outfit best re-brands them for NOT rape & murder & poverty & whatnot!

    (I borrowed a few of your exclamation marks, Sady. Hope you don’t mind, they were kinda fun!)

  33. I went all out of my way with the scare quotes, and somehow it was all in vain . . .

    @Politicalguineapig: No, women don’t want to be weak. No one wants to be weak. I’m saying (and I’d actually be shocked if you didn’t agree) that certain stereotypically feminine traits are perceived as weak, even if they have no actual connection to how smart you are and how well you do your job. And of course, a woman who doesn’t act in stereotypically feminine ways is a bitch, a lesbian (because that’s a terrible thing to be?) and generally considered less than. It’s a lose-lose situation, which is why we need feminism, which is why it would be really nice if feminists stopped sticking their heads in the ground and pretending that feminism doesn’t have an image problem.

    @ACG: I think you misunderstood, because I basically said the exact same thing you’re saying. One of my huge problems with the article was the line about how “women aren’t afraid to be women.” I felt that the author was claiming that real women MUST act stereotypically feminine, and I find that view extremely sexist. Nicky Loomis may be right about feminism’s need for a rebranding, but as I said, she’s going about it all wrong.

    @Sheezlebub: Dude, I did not think I was that unclear. I could have written that a little better, but it would be nice if you actually bothered to read my comment rather than assuming I agree with every single idiotic thing the women who wrote the original article said. Again, I completely agree with you about stereotypical femininity being seen as weak and bad due to sexism.

    And no, I’m not lecturing Sady on tone. I have no problem with snark and I enjoy reading it, particularly when it’s done well. But snark without substance is snark, not an argument. It might be very amusing, but that still doesn’t make it a real argument. Sometimes the two get a little confused. I am getting that sense from this post and the responses to it.

    @Shelby: Idealism is all good and nice, but it’s not terribly practical. Political advertising is still advertising, even when it’s for a very good cause. All the anti-prop 8 ads are still ads, but they’re selling an idea (human rights!) rather than a product. If you want to change the way people think about gender, you’re going to have to sell them on the idea. That’s cynical, but it’s true.

    It would be awesome if everyone in the world sat down, thought about it for a bit, and came to the conclusion that women and men are clearly unequal and this feminism stuff makes a lot of sense. That will never happen.

    And I totally love this thing where you assume that I want to rebrand feminism by having feminists dress better (?). What on Earth did I say to make you decide that?

    If you think about it, feminism has already been rebranded once or twice, and for the better. Modern feminism emphasizes intersectionality much more than old school feminism did, and that’s a good thing.

  34. Nat: I don’t think it’s a lose-lose situation. I’d rather be the “Scary Bitch” than the “Office Flirt.” I don’t really think that feminism has an image problem, in fact, we need more scary bitches! If men can’t fear a concept or a political idea, they don’t take it seriously.

  35. This may be outside the point, and it’s probably just a product of my inability to leave my (marketing) job at the office, but one thing that bugs me about Loomis’s column is that she uses the word “rebrand” like she knows what it means. She seems to think that “rebranding” means changing the entire product so it’s softer and cuddlier and easier to do and more universally appealing—and that’s not what “rebranding” means. Rebranding is just finding a better way to express the benefits and attributes of the product you have.

    Feminism (as the monolithic, Borgian institution she seems to think it is) doesn’t need Oprah Loomis to charge in and give it a makeover. Oprah Loomis doesn’t even understand the movement she’s trying to make over. Despite the occasional hiccups and infighting that any movement is going to have, feminism has been demonstrably successful over the years, even if it hasn’t managed to completely rid the world of sexism and feed the world and give everyone a pony. It has evolved with the times and will continue to do so, even if Loomis thinks it’s disappeared because women can now toss pie crusts and have a job.

    I will agree with her, purely from a marketing perspective, that the first step in rebranding is to figure out what people think is wrong with you (although we generally use the word perceive, as in negative perceptions). But while her sample size of 15 certainly was handy for her terribly scientific survey, it also raises the question of selection bias, wherein any of Loomis’s friends may well be just as ignorant and intellectually incurious as she is.

    The fact that one question kept coming up, though, is significant: “What do you mean by feminism?” I think that’s the one thing, marketing-wise, that movement feminism hasn’t articulated all that well to the general public. Nicky considers it a bug that feminism is “kaleidoscopic” and represents so many things to so many people—but that’s kind of the point. Does feminism stand for equal rights in the workforce or babies or sexual freedom? Yes. And while we do a pretty good job of expressing within the movement that “feminism” covers the hundreds and hundreds of issues crucial to the overarching theme of equality and equal protection, I don’t think that’s something we necessarily do well to the average consumer—we frequently take it issue-by-issue without really relating it back to the concept of feminism.

    So from purely a marketing standpoint, regarding “rebranding” as it actually is and not as Loomis seems to think it is (and she’d do well to actually understand a concept before she starts writing about it), the “kaleidoscopic” aspect of feminism is something I think we could do a better job of emphasizing. It’s not about weakening the tea, about making feminism soft and squishy and sparkly and pink and less, like, icky and movement-y so that women won’t be afraid of it. It’s about taking the issues and concerns that women have and putting them in the context of feminism, showing them that in many respects, they’re already kind of feminist and just didn’t realize it.

  36. @Politicalguineapig: Which stereotype you would prefer is irrelevant. I object to the fact that women are forced to choose between two extremes in a way that men aren’t. For women, there’s not much middle ground. How is that not a lose-lose situation?

  37. I’m interested in the assertion that “snark is not actually a legitimate argument.” I’m not someone who frequents blogs, so I had to look up the word to be sure I understood it in the context of blogging. Urban Dictionary offers the following definition of ‘snark’ “Biting, cruel humor or wit, commonly used to verbally attack someone or something.” And in my experience, wit and irony are frequently very powerful persuaders. I would contend that being funny does not illegitimatise someone’s approach to feminist discourse

  38. Thing of beauty, ACG.

    I’m sick of trying to explain to people that feminism doesn’t have an image problem – the unthinking masses have a perception problem. The fact that people have heard that feminists are man-hating, ugly, angry bitches says nothing about what feminists are actually like or do – or even how they present themselves in public discourse! It just says that misogynists have been really vocal, people with no desire/ability to think critically have taken their statements at face value, and that people colour others with unrelated negative attributes when they don’t like what they’re saying.

    The unlikeable feminist stereotype was not new for the suffragettes, the second wavers, the third wavers, or whatever we’re all supposed to be in now. I remember my first year as an undergrad studying in the library, and chancing upon press archives of suffragette movement coverage someone else had left out. It was a brilliant demonstration of the adage those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it: all the reporters (of either gender) who agreed with the suffragettes wrote that they were nice, friendly, intelligent, attractive women and good wives; and all the misogynists (of either gender) wrote that they were shrill, dumb, unmarriagable, ugly shrews. Same speech, same woman – completely different representation. Those women couldn’t “rebrand” themselves and reflect on their “image” to win converts any more than modern feminists can. If people are going to hate on you for undermining their privilege, they’re going to describe you unkindly.

    Nicky’s argument is a profoundly tiresome and unoriginal argument that too many young women have started (still? I bet the suffragettes daughter’s might’ve said the same things) throw around like they think they invented it. Note: I’m only a year older than Nicky, we’re the same cohort and we got the same messages about scary feminists growing up – she just drank the Kool-Aid.

    Natalie: You’re drinking it too.

    Do THOSE feminists exist? Well, I’ve encountered a fair amount of discourse calling itself feminist that I do not agree with and would not like to be personally associated with, which is I guess what people mean by THOSE feminists, it is true – but SO WHAT? I’ve also met a lot of fellow Green Party members who endorse platforms I strongly disagree with, and that are mocked by the mainstream; people who make me ashamed to share Canada with them; and women – self-identified feminist or not – who endorse/enact views of being a woman that make my skin crawl knowing that some man somewhere will use to validate his worldview about what women are “really like”/”really want”. So? All I can do is say “As a woman/Green Party member/Canadian/feminist, those views are not mine, and I don’t think they’re necessarily representative. These are my views, and I know others in my group share them, too….”. No need to try to apologize because somebody else who shares many of my political goals went silly places with their philosophy/actions I wouldn’t. It will always happen, wherever more than 2 people call themselves any label you choose. (See: [any religious/political group], public perceptions of).

    If a fair number of any movement I belonged to went in a direction I didn’t agree with, or the movement held a central tenet common to all facets that I disagree with (See: deistic religions, all) then I would not count myself as a member. Simple as that. Either the fundamental tenet of feminism – that women are people too, and deserve to be treated like it – holds water, or it doesn’t. Individual women might disagree with what a person should be treated like, but that’s not a “branding” issue. That’s a human issue, and it has nothing to do with the word “feminism”.

  39. @HannahBallou: I never said that.

    Thoughtfullness and snarkiness are not mutually exclusive, and every good bit of snarky writing you’ve ever read is proof of this. I’m a big believer in humor and satire as effective forms of criticism.

    The problem comes when you have more snark than substance. You can be funny and biting and give a verbal smackdown to whoever, but if you don’t have concrete arguments all the snark in the world isn’t going to make up for it. Unfortunately, people forget this.

  40. @Natalie Zack

    By the power of cut and paste(or scrolling up, for that matter), I can prove that you did say exactly that. Abracadabra!

    “and it would be nice if people remembered that snark is not actually a legitimate argument”

    The snark in question is loaded with demonstrable points. Not sure why you would use it to make the (valid) point that passionate discourse does not necessarily equal rational discourse.

  41. N.Z:Men aren’t expected to be doormats, that’s the difference. I prefer not to have people walk over me. If your preferences are different, that’s fine, but don’t pretend that being “nice” is feminist.

  42. Feminism was rebranded when Riot Girl was co-opted by that Spice Girl vagina ghetto crap. I’m still waiting to hear the end of feminist impersonators saying shit like “you go grrrl” and “this pole dancing class is really empowering.”

  43. @HannahBallou:

    Snark alone is not a legitimate argument, but a legitimate argument can be snarky.

    It’s the difference between making fun of a politician for having a folksy accent and making fun of her for having terrible ideas. Either one has potential to be amusing, but the first does absolutely nothing to discredit her ideas.

  44. @Natalie: Sorry I’m late on responding to this. BUT! I don’t think that blogs THEMSELVES are evidence that feminism is alive – even though it is. I think that the PREVALENCE of blogs, the POPULARITY of blogs, and the MAINSTREAM STATUS of many blogs are evidence of that. And I think the fact that she didn’t point out any of the feminist activism that is still going on, or bring that into play as part of her argument, was either disingenuous or ignorant, and it compromised her article.

    As for the “icky and untrue” play on “afraid to be women,” well: I think you missed that it was a play on a really old anti-feminist trope (i.e., feminists are all so super-masculine and gross because they’re “afraid” to be real, “feminine” women) which pointed out that wearing high heels and making cupcakes are really the LEAST women have to fear, and that if a woman WERE scared to be a woman, she would have GOOD, SOLID REASONS for that. I’m not purposefully misrepresenting Loomis’ article, I’m pointing out how supremely silly it is.

    If she interviewed a bunch of women, found out they didn’t know what “feminism” was, and then wrote an article about how a lot of women these days seem less educated about feminism than they maybe ought to be or would like to be, we’d be having a different conversation. Instead, she argued that feminism had to somehow entirely change – and not be called “feminism,” among other things – so that more women could be, um… “bleminists?” Even though it would be a completely different thing with a completely different name, so basically if it succeeded it would have the effect of making all women NOT feminists any more?

    As for the snark: I hate that word, but sure. My problem is that when I see something this deeply stupid, I can’t get righteously outraged or find it in my tiny, withered heart to kindly explain to the offending party what the problems are. I just think it’s absurd, and I laugh about it. If you don’t see “substance” in here, well… sorry. There are some fairly substantive points, in my opinion. I don’t know if the tone made it hard to see, or what.

Comments are currently closed.