Hmph.

55 thoughts on Hmph.

1. Shorter WW: I don’t care how much good you’ve done for women; if you don’t work on my agenda, you’re not a feminist!

2. I’m really not going to go into WW’s actual criticisms because it’s not worth trying to engage with fundamentalists, especially fundamentalists who’s views are so marginal.

   That being said, I hate the idea of doing charitable works because I think the whole idea of charity sucks. To be clear, it’s not that I think volunteering time or skills is a bad thing – obviously these things are needed, and people should help if they are able to.

   My problem is with the idea of “charity” itself, which turns political problems into individualized problems to be solved outside of the public sphere – i.e., by charities, religious institutions, and so on. And of course there are other aspects as well – volunteering/doing charity work is a very gendered (and classed- who has time to do this stuff) activity. The people who do the overwhelming majority of volunteer work are women, adding to the unpaid and unacknowledged work that women do, allowing the state to wash it’s hands of responsibility for providing the necessary supports. For example, my dad’s been volunteering at an emergency shelter for the homeless operated by his synangogue. The Out of the Cold program operates in places of worship all over Toronto to provide food and shelter to the homeless throughout the winter. It was supposed to be a stop-gap measure, to prevent people from freezing to death on the streets, something that happens every winter. Out of the Cold has been going on for more than 10 years. In that time, funding for programs for the homeless have been slashed, almost no affordable housing has been built, and the city is still short on shelter beds.

   Obviously OUt of the Cold is a good thing, but it would also be great if all those people who are involved in these charitable works were also doing some kind of advocacy, and they’re not. The vast majority of them do not see the problems of poverty and homelessness as political.

   I would contrast this with organizations like Toronto Rape Crisis Centre/Multicultural Women Against Rape who are really explicit about violence against women and sexual assault as political. In addition the operating crisis lines, individual and group counselling, they do tons of political activism.

   But of course we don’t live in a perfect world, and we have to make do. I’ve done all sorts of “charitable works” over the years that haven’t been explicitly political, and many of those volunteer opportunities have been politicizing experiences for me. I’m just frustrated with the prevailing social services/social work model that individualizes and depoliticizes these problems while simultaneously providing desperately needed resources.

3. This is just another step in the whole bullshit ‘more feminist than thou’ phenomenon, and her views deserve to be soundly ignored.

   Seriously, dude, of all the people to shit on, she picks ‘folks who do charity work”? Oh yeah, they’re clearly history’s greatest monsters.

4. Charitable works on behalf of some women (the most obviously beaten down and abused in your community) does not a feminist make. Anyone can fucking do that.

   Actually caring about women as a whole, as a group, as a global Class (yes, terribly unfashionable, I know); actually living as a feminist, being a feminist, is an inside thing. It’s an ‘in your soul’ thing. (And possibly not something too many blogging, white, American women know very much about or are much bothered about. Sorry, not demonstrating any ‘ism’ there – just that you mostly seem a tad blinkered to anyone elses society from what I’ve observed.)

   This comes across as slactivism of the worst kind — “I don’t actually have to DO anything like the rest of you plebes — the mere fact that I hold the beliefs is what’s really important.”

   And, um, political work is charity work. Don’t fool yourselves, kids. Unless you’re a paid staff member of a campaign, you’re doing charity work.

5. shorter Thomas (and friends): I am a wanker and can’t read properly.

   Good grief people. Since when is – charity/good works/helping little old ladies across the road doesn’t equal feminism – a “marginal” and “fundamentalist” statement ?

   Oh, I know since when, since there aint been any high profile straw-evilradfem bashing for a few days.

6. Its the “in your soul” aspect of this that bugs me. When did feminism get all mystical? First there were the “ineffability of women” and “tribe that bleeds” comments at that Twisty thread, now this.

   If I want to be a feminist, do I have to turn into some sort of sky clad moon maiden wearing a giant Venus of Willendorf pendant or something?

   (Full disclosure: I actually have a giant Venus of Willendorf pendant.)

7. Good grief people. Since when is – charity/good works/helping little old ladies across the road doesn’t equal feminism – a “marginal” and “fundamentalist” statement ?

   Oh, I know since when, since there aint been any high profile straw-evilradfem bashing for a few days.

   Bashing? Whatever you say.

   What bothers me is that she’s arrogating authenticity–she’s not the blinkered one, she’s the one who really listens to downtrodden women–while at the same time saying things about the value of volunteer work that couldn’t have less to do with its meaning to people who use volunteer-staffed services. Not to put to fine a point on it, but she doesn’t sound like she’s really working from the perspective of those women deemed “less than” her. She sounds like a privileged asshole.

   Equating the type of volunteer work she was denigrating with helping little old ladies across the road is also pretty fucked up.

8. I got a different view from the linked article. It was not that charity work is a bad thing. It’s that charity work isn’t necessarily feminist, nor does it necessarily deal with the basic problem of class oppression of women which is at the core of radical feminism.

9. Good grief people. Since when is – charity/good works/helping little old ladies across the road doesn’t equal feminism – a “marginal” and “fundamentalist” statement ?

   I believe that it is a marginal, fundamentalist statement that devoting a good-sized portion of your free time to women’s shelters and rape hotlines is not a feminist act, yes.

   I also think that the fact that you snarkily includes “helping little old ladies across the road” as a typical act of pro-woman charity work tells us a lot.

10. TRUK, WW has already made other “you’re no feminist if …” statements, and therefore is not going to get a sympathetic reading when she makes some more. Feminist charity work like staffing shelters is feminist, even if the feminist doing the work doesn’t analyze the needs of class woman the same way WW does. But WW won’t concede that, because she thinks that only feminists that agree with her on all her big agenda items get to call themselves feminist.

    Radfem puritanism is going to run into a brick wall with this readership. But hey, go ahead and pretend you’re the persecuted ones. Just don’t expect us all to agree.

11. Also: I totally hear what you’re saying, Debbie, and I don’t think you’re wrong. I think that both concrete action to address current problems and political activism to change the framework are important. I just don’t think that there must be a conflict between them.

12. I got a different view from the linked article. It was not that charity work is a bad thing. It’s that charity work isn’t necessarily feminist, nor does it necessarily deal with the basic problem of class oppression of women which is at the core of radical feminism.

    She isn’t just talking about charity work, but about charity work focused on women that usually takes place in organizations dedicated to ending problems related to misogyny. The response to “fun feminist” or whatever doesn’t usually talk about volunteering in general.

    I don’t think I can accept the personal/political split, since the core problem plays itself out in quotidian ways.

13. Good grief people. Since when is – charity/good works/helping little old ladies across the road doesn’t equal feminism – a “marginal” and “fundamentalist” statement ?

    As others have pointed out … since someone insisted that helping out on rape hotlines and battered women’s shelters is counterproductive to “real” feminism, with a side of suggestion that doing so is actually anti-feminist.

    Again, to me, it sounds like someone’s writing themselves a great excuse to sit on their ass in their ivory tower and insist that people who are doing actual work are suckers. What really matters is what you’re thinking, man, not what you actually accomplish! Which, again, is what fundamentalist Christians think — “I don’t actually have to do all the things Jesus said I should do as long as I say I believe in him.”

    Political work without pay = charity work. Sorry to burst Witchy-woo’s bubble about that one.

14. Also: I totally hear what you’re saying, Debbie, and I don’t think you’re wrong. I think that both concrete action to address current problems and political activism to change the framework are important. I just don’t think that there must be a conflict between them.

    Absolutely–charity without any concern for social justice is weak (and I’m with Debbie on some of the implications of “charity”). But I can’t imagine a social-justice movement that doesn’t prioritize community service, or any philosophy of social justice that de-emphasizes the concrete meaning of community-service actions.

15. Vanessa: Its the “in your soul” aspect of this that bugs me. When did feminism get all mystical? First there were the “ineffability of women” and “tribe that bleeds” comments at that Twisty thread, now this.

    Sourjourner Truth?

    Or more recently, a consistent thread within feminism has been that women are an oppressed class with a need to define their experiences in their own language as part of class liberation. For women like Z Budapest and Mary Daly, that has included radical theology. Personally, I’m about a spiritual as a cereal box, but I don’t think radfem theology should be mocked or marginalized.

    Myca: I believe that it is a marginal, fundamentalist statement that devoting a good-sized portion of your free time to women’s shelters and rape hotlines is not a feminist act, yes.

    I don’t think that is what is being said here. (And much less this discussion is ignoring the first half of the post in question that a lot of these blog blow-ups would be mediated by a simple polite, “Say wha?”)

    Radical means root. Radical feminists argue that patriarchy needs to be pulled up from the roots. Volunteering for shelters, hotlines and political campaigns certainly are necessary, but they don’t always address the root cause of patriarchy.

16. Or more recently, a consistent thread within feminism has been that women are an oppressed class with a need to define their experiences in their own language as part of class liberation. For women like Z Budapest and Mary Daly, that has included radical theology. Personally, I’m about a spiritual as a cereal box, but I don’t think radfem theology should be mocked or marginalized.

    I think it should be heartily mocked when it implies that non-believers are lightweights, which is the sense I got here. Her mysticism is just fine, but the implication that it’s not an inside thing for certain other women is a little different.

    (And much less this discussion is ignoring the first half of the post in question that a lot of these blog blow-ups would be mediated by a simple polite, “Say wha?”)

    Yes, but then she goes on to commit exactly the same argumentative atrocities she’s complaining about. We can’t talk to one another about how much you suck? We can’t talk to each other about how little respect you clearly have for me?

    Radical means root. Radical feminists argue that patriarchy needs to be pulled up from the roots. Volunteering for shelters, hotlines and political campaigns certainly are necessary, but they don’t always address the root cause of patriarchy.

    Assuming that they don’t compromise on the needs of women, how do they avoid doing that?

17. Thomas WW has already made other “you’re no feminist if …” statements, and therefore is not going to get a sympathetic reading when she makes some more.

    Ahh. You didn’t like something she said once before so you will now read into whatever you fancy into what she actually writes in any future instance.

    Mnemosyne As others have pointed out … since someone insisted that helping out on rape hotlines and battered women’s shelters is counterproductive to “real” feminism,

    I did not see this anywhere in witchy’s post nor in piny’s analysis.

    And witchy wasn’t criticising people who do charity/volunteer work – that is a fundamental misreading.

    Equating the type of volunteer work she was denigrating with helping little old ladies across the road is also pretty fucked up.

    Who equated them ? In your head only I think.

18. Thomas: TRUK, WW has already made other “you’re no feminist if …” statements, and therefore is not going to get a sympathetic reading when she makes some more.

    Instead of a sympathetic reading, how about an honest reading?

    Feminist charity work like staffing shelters is feminist, even if the feminist doing the work doesn’t analyze the needs of class woman the same way WW does. But WW won’t concede that, because she thinks that only feminists that agree with her on all her big agenda items get to call themselves feminist.

    Is it? This entire argument is based on the assumption that feminists are the only people with an interest in aiding survivors of rape and domestic violence. In fact, it is entirely possible to have people who are otherwise anti-feminist engage in rape and domestic violence activism.

    So the notion that feminism should be defined by a political concern for women as a class rather than participation in this specific form of activism, or that specific form of activism seems quite reasonable to me.

19. I should add, for context, that if one moseys over to WW’s place and reads the linked post and the comments, this is another dustup between pro-porn and anti-porn. This was not a freestanding meditation about whether all charity work is feminist — nobody would or has made such a claim. I serve on the board of a charity that gives cash assistance to poor, elderly women, and I don’t call that feminist activism or even feminist charity. That’s charity. That is helping little old ladies across the street. But feminists who try, for example, to provide services to sex workers ought to get a hat-tip for their feminist charity work, even if they don’t march under the anti-pornstitution banner.

    The genesis of the whole thing is a post at another blog that has been deleted, but the proprietor (Stormy) commented at WW’s, in part, as follows:

    However, recent, but repeated blog troubles exist when the pro-pornstitution collide with the anti-pornstitution. A few weeks ago I alluded to perhaps more underlying the agenda of the pro-porn camp, and the effective dilution, up to and including the silencing, of radical feminist bloggers. This set off a frenzy in the camp that I referred to as wasps in the allegory, a frenzy that resulted in repeated attacks. One can only conclude that ‘I hit a nerve’ (truth). Unfortunately, some radfems read a lot of other stuff into the story, that was certainly NOT intended, again I think this was hitting a nerve of self-doubt in some cases.

    Primarily because everything I would blog from here on in would be ridiculed and twisted (by the pro-pornies), I have closed stormyblog. An example of their handiwork can be seen at operationwasp.wordpress.com. I have participated little, yet they continue to take every opportunity to hold me up as the One True Enemy of Feminism, whilst simultaneously claiming to be the Most Unfairly Treated and Deserving Victim. Here’s a clue—only ONE side is slagging off ‘the other’ on their own blogs (take a look around the radfem blogs, see any posts against them? Not even my original posts). And I really cannot understand why any of the radfems feel the need ‘to be friends’ and ‘work together’ with a group that take every opportunity to twist the words of radfems. I can only put it down to a version of Stockholm Syndrome, so that they themselves (radfems) won’t be targeted in the future.

    So there we go. This isn’t about charity. It’s just a further iteration of the anti-porn feminists saying that every other feminist is a counterproductive traitor and, to loosely paraphrase Luther and Calvin, their good works will not save them because salvation is by faith alone.

20. myca I believe that it is a marginal, fundamentalist statement that devoting a good-sized portion of your free time to women’s shelters and rape hotlines is not a feminist act, yes.

    OK,(aside from my query already made as to where in her post she said this anyway) are you saying that when looking at actions then someone automatically takes on the beliefs and principles of any group who would also carry out those actions ?:

    feminist act / feminism.
    Christian act / Christian believer.

    People can engage usefully in the former, does it make them the latter ?

    I also think that the fact that you snarkily includes “helping little old ladies across the road” as a typical act of pro-woman charity work tells us a lot.

    It should tell you nothing more than I am somewaht prone to making sarcastic remarks. Anything further is baseless conjecture.

21. You did equate them:

    charity/good works/helping little old ladies across the road

    And so people read you as though you had.

    It should tell you nothing more than I am somewaht prone to making sarcastic remarks. Anything further is baseless conjecture.

    It was a sarcastic remark that trivialized the kind of volunteer work that Witchy-woo was describing. If you were kidding, fine, but don’t act like people are unreasonable to read what you said and respond to it.

    feminist act / feminism.
    Christian act / Christian believer.

    People can engage usefully in the former, does it make them the latter ?

    What are feminist and Christian acts, as far as you’re concerned?

    Is it? This entire argument is based on the assumption that feminists are the only people with an interest in aiding survivors of rape and domestic violence. In fact, it is entirely possible to have people who are otherwise anti-feminist engage in rape and domestic violence activism.

    So the notion that feminism should be defined by a political concern for women as a class rather than participation in this specific form of activism, or that specific form of activism seems quite reasonable to me.

    It responded to an argument that distinguished between political concern and political action when undertaken by people who are feminists–their political philosophy is based on the belief that sexism must be fought for the sake of women. The work they do and the organizations they work for are also affected by their political beliefs.

22. piny: I think it should be heartily mocked when it implies that non-believers are lightweights, which is the sense I got here. Her mysticism is just fine, but the implication that it’s not an inside thing for certain other women is a little different.

    Well, I don’t see why this is a problem. Just as an related example, most people will wholeheartedly say, “hate crimes against lesbigays are a bad thing, but…” Whenever someone says that, I know that they are not really committed to ending heterosexism, they just want to be on record as opposed to the most violent aspects of heterosexsm.

    Likewise, I know many men and women who will say that they are opposed to rape and domestic violence. Some of them will even volunteer their time and show up and march. Then they will go on to say, “Rape is a bad thing, but…” or “Domestic violence is a bad thing, but…” and reveal that they are not really committed to ending sexism, they just want to show they are opposed to the most violent aspects of it.

    Assuming that they don’t compromise on the needs of women, how do they avoid doing that?

    Just about everyone who is not psycohotic, or on the radical fringe agrees that rape and domestic violence are wrong. Not everyone sees rape and domestic violence as symptoms of class oppression of women.

23. I’m unclear about why the false dichotomy is necessary. Let’s posit a feminist who volunteers a few hours a week at a community kitchen project, designed to help low-income families maximize their resources by buying food in bulk, teach practicable meal-planning skills, provide child-care so that parents can relax together, and foster community in an area where people are frequently marginalized and disinfranchised, and unlikely to ask their neighbours for help in a crisis [or add your volunteer gig of choice; me, I’m a literacy volunteer]. How does this activity preclude this feminist’s consciousness-raising, political agitation, and patriarchy-smashing activities?

24. Well, I don’t see why this is a problem. Just as an related example, most people will wholeheartedly say, “hate crimes against lesbigays are a bad thing, but…” Whenever someone says that, I know that they are not really committed to ending heterosexism, they just want to be on record as opposed to the most violent aspects of heterosexsm.

    That’s not an analogy to what I’m complaining about. It’s the idea that there’s something intrinsically feminist about mysticism, as opposed to pragmatism.

    Likewise, I know many men and women who will say that they are opposed to rape and domestic violence. Some of them will even volunteer their time and show up and march. Then they will go on to say, “Rape is a bad thing, but…” or “Domestic violence is a bad thing, but…” and reveal that they are not really committed to ending sexism, they just want to show they are opposed to the most violent aspects of it.

    Just about everyone who is not psycohotic, or on the radical fringe agrees that rape and domestic violence are wrong. Not everyone sees rape and domestic violence as symptoms of class oppression of women.

    But there’s a difference between saying that sure, it’s wrong to assault women or condone assaulting women, and actually working to keep women from being assaulted. It sounds like what you’re talking about by definition involves a refusal to attack the problem either in terms of its symptoms or its root cause.

25. And speaking as a queer, I’d be really fucking suspicious of anyone who purported to have a mystical connection to ending homophobia, or who said that (say) gay-bashing was an “inside thing” for them in some deeper way that didn’t actually involve surviving a homophobic assault.

26. Likewise, I know many men and women who will say that they are opposed to rape and domestic violence. Some of them will even volunteer their time and show up and march. Then they will go on to say, “Rape is a bad thing, but…” or “Domestic violence is a bad thing, but…” and reveal that they are not really committed to ending sexism, they just want to show they are opposed to the most violent aspects of it.

    I see what you’re saying, but I think it’s kind of a strawman . . . and I think it’s worth turning around.

    What about someone who talks a good talk about class oppression but never does a single solitary thing to end it? I think that that’s as much a fair characterization of WW’s position as your characterization is of ours.

27. Thomas: So there we go. This isn’t about charity. It’s just a further iteration of the anti-porn feminists saying that every other feminist is a counterproductive traitor and, to loosely paraphrase Luther and Calvin, their good works will not save them because salvation is by faith alone.

    I’m finding that pro-porn feminists are frequently just as dogmatic and hostile towards actual and perceived criticism by radfems. Both sides certainly appear to be holding the other as the One True Enemy of Feminism. The end result is that it’s become pretty much impossible to have a civil discussion of pornography, or many other issues in which radical feminism and progressive feminism disagree.

    We can play the “gotcha” game and nurse past grudges until the end of time. I don’t think that this discussion is aided by misrepresenting it as “charity work is good/bad.”

28. Looks like two other people already made what I thought was my clever, original comparison between this and sola fide (faith alone) Christian doctrine.

    So if we sit in our comfy chairs and believe the right things and wish patriarchy away, it’ll just be “pulled up by the roots?” Oh good. That’s much more fun than peeling potatoes at the local shelter.

29. Wait, wha? Doing actual work in the trenches on women’s behalf doesn’t count for anything in her book? I don’t know the background behind this, but it sure sounds like sour grapes. It sounds like she was called out on something by someone doing actual work in the trenches, and because they’re a real, y’know, activist, and not an armchair one, she has no other way to say they’re not a real feminist.

30. Piny, I am unwilling to analyze this as anything other than a continuation of the war between a certain clique of antiporn radfems on the one hand, and RenEv, Amber, BD and a few others on the other hand. You appear to be interested in taking the question of the connection between works and ideology at face value — a project with value, but to which in this instance I am counterproductive. In order not to cause your thread to drift into a rehash of bitter history, I’m bowing out.

31. jennie: I’m unclear about why the false dichotomy is necessary

    I’m not presenting a false dichotomy. What I am saying is that I consider feminism to be a political ideology first, from which engagement in certain forms of political activism follow. However, I can’t pretend that everyone who engages in the same forms of political activism as me, shares the same political ideology. People can engage in rape and domestic violence activism for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with other aspects of feminism.

    piny: That’s not an analogy to what I’m complaining about. It’s the idea that there’s something intrinsically feminist about mysticism, as opposed to pragmatism.

    Well, I didn’t automatically interpret “soul” in that way because I often find that I have to use the “soul” metaphor to convey the depth and passion of my political beliefs.

    piny: But there’s a difference between saying that sure, it’s wrong to assault women or condone assaulting women, and actually working to keep women from being assaulted.

    And some people who actually work to keep women from being assaulted, may do some from a paternalistic perspective that women are frail by nature and need to be protected.

    piny: And speaking as a queer, I’d be really fucking suspicious of anyone who purported to have a mystical connection to ending homophobia, or who said that (say) gay-bashing was an “inside thing” for them in some deeper way that didn’t actually involve surviving a homophobic assault.

    Well, this is probably a topic for another time, but atheists such as myself have a problem in that religion has appropriated quite a bit of language for talking about emotion, commitment, ethics and morality to the point that it’s often difficult for us to avoid using that language.

    And well, I have an equal level of suspicion around “pragmatic” language because the people who use it are the first to throw queers under the bus, or tell them to sit down and stop rocking the boat.

    Myca: What about someone who talks a good talk about class oppression but never does a single solitary thing to end it? I think that that’s as much a fair characterization of WW’s position as your characterization is of ours.

    It wasn’t intended to characterize your position, but the position of many people who are near and dear to me who have limited commitments to social justice.

32. twf: So if we sit in our comfy chairs and believe the right things and wish patriarchy away, it’ll just be “pulled up by the roots?” Oh good. That’s much more fun than peeling potatoes at the local shelter.

    I don’t think that anyone has made this claim. I think the claim being made is that feminism shouldn’t live in a box of 20 hours a week of volunteer work.

33. Without addressing WW’s comments directly, I do know that a lot of people who do volunteer or charity work wind up doing two things: 1) solidifying the issue or problem that they are helping (think co-dependency situation and 2) engaging in an extended “feel good” activity for their own purposes (think “I’m such a good person because…”) that ultimately doesn’t help anyone else. Whether this is what WW is referring to, I don’t know, but talk to anyone: disabled, poor, of color, and they’ll know exactly what I’m talking about here.

34. Huh.

    Okay, so the argument is, then, “Look, just because you’re involved in charity that helps some women, it doesn’t mean you’re a feminist. You have to believe in feminism to be a feminist.”?

    I mean. Okay.
    Sure.

    I’ll buy that- if you’re not really concerned about women, and you’re just doing X, Y, or Z because it makes you feel good, or because it lets you control women, or whatever other motivations you’re looking for… sure, I probably wouldn’t consider that particularly feminist.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure I’m seeing the value of an argument like that. You may as well be saying: “Someone who does charity because it lets him laugh at the disadvantaged and makes him feel superior isn’t actually a nice person.”
    Well, duh.

    The problem with that argument is that, unless a person tells you, you have no way of knowing, do you?
    I can’t read minds, so I have no way of knowing what the motivations are of anyone else’s actions, so I have to base my analysis on actions. If I meet a woman, and she’s talking about her concern for women, and she’s volunteering her time to help women… who am I to start second-guessing her claim “I’m a feminist”?

    I find claims that “so-and-so isn’t a real X” sort of… troubling.

35. Yeah, my initial thought was also that “faith, not works” probably shouldn’t apply to feminism. I mean… it’s not exactly convincing on Southern Baptists, either.

36. huh. what a choad. this is totally off-topic but i’ve read this several times and there seems to be a radical fallacy here-

    if feminism may be defined as the political agenda for the liberation of women, ergo sum, no act of feminism, if performed by a woman, can be considered an act of charity, if charity may be defined as selfless giving. it is an act of political collective self-empowerment. we are crusading in our own collective interest.

    my point is merely that if you are going to make an outlandishly snooty and self-righteous statement, don’t be an illogical dumbass. my debate teacher always taught us that when making a provocative argument, all points must be able to be reduce to the bare-bones essence of Cartesian logic.

    thanks.

37. Mnemosyne As others have pointed out … since someone insisted that helping out on rape hotlines and battered women’s shelters is counterproductive to “real” feminism,

    I did not see this anywhere in witchy’s post nor in piny’s analysis.

    And witchy wasn’t criticising people who do charity/volunteer work – that is a fundamental misreading.

    I went over to witchy’s blog and read the whole post — and the comments — and it still says to me, “The only REAL feminism is Radical Feminism, and anyone who does work to help women without having Radical Feminism in their hearts is helping the patriarchy. I, on the other hand, can do no work at all and still be better than you, because I have Radical Feminism in my heart.”

    I said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

    He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

    I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
    — Emo Philips

38. Roy: who am I to start second-guessing her claim “I’m a feminist”?

    Well, there is this interesting dynamic that I’ve seen consistently over the last 20 years.

    Radicals say that we should think beyond details at how systems of oppression affect many aspects of our lives, even how we think and see ourselves.

    And somehow, this gets turned around into nitpicking over the details and “you are not a feminist if..,” “you are not queer if…,” “you are not an environmentalist if…,” “you are not a pacifist if….”

    It’s depressing and frustrating in that you can’t say, “I’d like to talk critically about X” because inevitably, someone will say, “you are second-guessing my feminist credentials.” As if there is some kind of a card that is given out. The only community I know that got out of this trap were bisexuals in the mid-90s who made a big joke about the need to validate or take away people’s “bi cards.”

    Morgan: if… if… if… defined…

    If wishes were horses, I’d have the best garden in town.

39. And some people who actually work to keep women from being assaulted, may do some from a paternalistic perspective that women are frail by nature and need to be protected.

    But again, you are talking about people whose activism–the things they’re willing to do–is very much compromised. If your interest in the concrete quotidian problems other women face extends exactly as far as their right not to get fucked against their will, then yes, you are lacking. And it’s worth pointing out that paternalistic motives hardly ever result in successful activism on that front, either, so the compromise goes even further. However, this is not what Witchy-woo was complaining about.

    Well, this is probably a topic for another time, but atheists such as myself have a problem in that religion has appropriated quite a bit of language for talking about emotion, commitment, ethics and morality to the point that it’s often difficult for us to avoid using that language.

    And well, I have an equal level of suspicion around “pragmatic” language because the people who use it are the first to throw queers under the bus, or tell them to sit down and stop rocking the boat.

    I think, though, that there’s a difference between pragmatism in terms of political triage and pragmatism in terms of seeing day-to-day problems first.

    And somehow, this gets turned around into nitpicking over the details and “you are not a feminist if..,” “you are not queer if…,” “you are not an environmentalist if…,” “you are not a pacifist if….”

    Except that she does say that.

    Actually caring about women as a whole, as a group, as a global Class (yes, terribly unfashionable, I know); actually living as a feminist, being a feminist, is an inside thing. It’s an ‘in your soul’ thing. (And possibly not something too many blogging, white, American women know very much about or are much bothered about. Sorry, not demonstrating any ‘ism’ there – just that you mostly seem a tad blinkered to anyone elses society from what I’ve observed.)

    See? You are not a feminist if your primary perspective is not global Class Woman-based; you’re obviously a buncha lightweights who can’t see beyond your own navels; QED. The implication is clearly that these women are not real feminists, and that you’re not a real feminist if you are like this.

    My problem with this is not the idea that the larger picture is important. My problem is with the assumption that the volunteers–who don’t IME spout off about their history in DV shelters or clinic defense or rape-crisis or whatever before they’re told that they’re a bunch of lipstick-chewing dilettantes who don’t care about important issues like raped women–have no political perspective. Why do they obviously have no political perspective? Well, they only help some women, the worst-off ones, and they do things anyone could do.

    And in all of this, she lapses into descriptions of the utility of this sort of work that seem pretty blinkered. She’s losing sight of the micro.

40. piny: See? You are not a feminist if your primary perspective is not global Class Woman-based; you’re obviously a buncha lightweights who can’t see beyond your own navels; QED. The implication is clearly that these women are not real feminists, and that you’re not a real feminist if you are like this.

    What is your alternate definition of feminism then? I find it hard to think of many definitions of feminism that are substantially different from the statement that Class Woman is subjected to systematic oppression on the basis of gender.

    My problem is with the assumption that the volunteers–who don’t IME spout off about their history in DV shelters or clinic defense or rape-crisis or whatever before they’re told that they’re a bunch of lipstick-chewing dilettantes who don’t care about important issues like raped women–have no political perspective.

    Well, I disagree that is what is being said here. But I’ve stated as such and I’m willing to agree to disagree.

41. What is your alternate definition of feminism then? I find it hard to think of many definitions of feminism that are substantially different from the statement that Class Woman is subjected to systematic oppression on the basis of gender.

    Then what is Witchy-woo complaining about? She’s talking to women who believe in sexism, and who are volunteering with organizations that fight it because they want to help women fight it. They obviously see their actions as related to a feminist ethos, because they’re bringing them up in response to the argument that they don’t really care about women’s rights. And she is saying that they don’t know about, don’t care about, being feminists. She’s getting at some other test here, one that obviously has to do with a much more rarified definition of real feminism.

42. Piny, I’m hearing that you’re upset about the idea that not all volunteers may be real feminists. Does the setting of boundaries around what feminism is and isn’t upset you? Also, how do you feel about salt?

43. piny: Then what is Witchy-woo complaining about?

    I suppose the best way to deal with this would be to ask her about this.

    I asked you because it seemed that you were complaining about defining feminism as being concerned about class woman. Do you have an issue with radical feminist definitions of feminism?

44. I suppose the best way to deal with this would be to ask her about this.

    We did just have a long conversation about what we each believed she was saying.

    I asked you because it seemed that you were complaining about defining feminism as being concerned about class woman. Do you have an issue with radical feminist definitions of feminism?

    I have an issue with the definition of class woman. Don’t get me started on Robin Morgan.

45. Piny, I’m hearing that you’re upset about the idea that not all volunteers may be real feminists. Does the setting of boundaries around what feminism is and isn’t upset you? Also, how do you feel about salt?

    No, that is not what I’m saying. And after God only knows how many thrashes over the exact same subject matter, you of all people should know that. This boundary bothers me, with its particular assumptions about the motivations of these women and the utility of their work, which is why I wrote a post responding to it.

46. But why does it bother you? Like, we’re supposed to volunteer making calls at the domestic violence place downtown, but some of the folks in my class are pro lifers (expressed). And there are plenty of other instances in which just volunteering, while nice and good for the country, may not mean you are an ideological feminist. My mom worked at habitat for humanity with me, but she’s the sort of person who says that annoying bs about girls being ‘fast’. Also, I’ve never gotten what you’ve been on about. I can’t find a nice way of asking why you care.

    (why do I care? Because if feminism has no boundaries, what does it mean? and how can I avoid getting lumped in with the ‘if you even look at birth control, you’re a stupid slut who’ll burn in hell ‘feminists’? )

47. My two cents:

    As a women who just left an abusive husband and is struggling to make it alone, I have a lot more respect for those who *actually do something* than for those who just *think* great things. It’s the volunteers who most inspire me at this particular point in my life. I’m sure I’m not alone in that feeling.

    Do you suppose that even non-feminists can inspire more people to become feminists through their actions than ideologues can through their communications?

48. But why does it bother you? Like, we’re supposed to volunteer making calls at the domestic violence place downtown, but some of the folks in my class are pro lifers (expressed). And there are plenty of other instances in which just volunteering, while nice and good for the country, may not mean you are an ideological feminist. My mom worked at habitat for humanity with me, but she’s the sort of person who says that annoying bs about girls being ‘fast’. Also, I’ve never gotten what you’ve been on about. I can’t find a nice way of asking why you care.

    I’m interested in this for the same reason you’re interested in it, without the senseless part. The conversation over what feminism means is an important one.

    (why do I care? Because if feminism has no boundaries, what does it mean? and how can I avoid getting lumped in with the ‘if you even look at birth control, you’re a stupid slut who’ll burn in hell ‘feminists’? )

    This happens pretty much any time anyone gets into an argument about what feminism might involve or what grounds on which feminists might criticize other feminists. And I can remember at least one or two occasions on which you have shown up here to raise the same red herring. I’m tired of it.

    If I argue that “marriage” should not exclude partnerships between two men or two women, I am not arguing that it should include man-on-boxturtle action.

    If I argue that “woman” should not exclude Sylvia Rivera, I am not arguing that it should include Chuck Norris.

    If I argue that “high art” should not exclude Maus, I am not arguing that it should include Jack Chick tracts.

    Along the same lines, if I argue that “feminist” should not exclude certain people or certain actions, I am not arguing that there is no such thing as “feminism” or that it is categorically improper to argue in favor of any boundaries around the concept at all.

    For fuck’s sake. So stop, just stop, pretending that there’s no difference between the two. It’s an insult to me, the Lyon-Martins, Sylvia Rivera, Art Spiegelman, and Chuck Norris’ massive biceps. And it’s really fucking irritating.

49. Now I’m not defending the remarks in question, because of the whole complicated history and contextual issues that I have no idea about. But charity can be poison.

    I’m not saying any help or volunteering is poison; I know you can do real good. But charity can be the most damaging, destructive thing you do for a person, even if you’re taking on a good cause without concern for principals.

    In the Philippines, I knew some excellent public health officials who did a lot of good work on providing accurate information and alternatives on birth control for poor women. I also heard (from knowledgable public health workers I personally trusted) of other people trying to promote birth control, population control, and better health among poor women. There were two distinct approaches.

    The ones I’d describe as good worked from a principal of women’s autonomy, decision-making abilities, and control over their own bodies. They primarily provided information, ensuring that the women they worked with were fully informed of the risks and benifits of any and all birth control techniques. They also make it so the women knew where and how to get birth control, and what their rights were. They did some work arranging the availability of low-cost contraceptives, but on a limited basis. The main task was providing information and spreading a certain outlook towards women’s bodies and reproductive decisions.

    These people would almost certainly not have described themselves as feminists, and hadn’t read much on the subject. So I consider that a count against ideological purity, but for the value of ideas.

    The ones I would not describe as good were extremely pragmatic. They provided sterilizations for poor women, which was a cheap one-time procedure. They’d get the women’s consent, usually by sending someone to the village a couple days in advance, telling women that there were free sterilizations available, and that any women who wanted one should take advantage of the opportunity now, because they couldn’t promise to go back. Then they’d set up in the nearest hospital, or well-equipped clinic, and perform tubal ligations for whoever agreed to it. No information on the risks was distributed, no effort was made to talk about other methods of birth control, and women who hesitated were told it could be their only chance. No woman that I heard about was forced into this, but a lot regretted it afterwards.

    As a more personal, less extreme example, I walk with crutches. I get a lot of people trying to help me. A few people try to help me agressively (NEVER grab someone with crutches going up or down stairs if they haven’t personally told you that it is helpful). And there’s an offended, entitled attitude when I refuse some of the more useless or damaging help. As if the fact that they’re trying to help means I owe it to them to be who they think I am and be helped how they say. If I hadn’t been kicking back against that continuously since childhood (and gotten good at it), I hate to think what I’d be trapped into by people deciding what I needed and how they could help me.

    I don’t think much of ideals or ideoligies that don’t touch the real world. I don’t believe that a million people thinking good thoughts is going to stop war or patriarchy or anything if they never get up off their meditation chairs and act. But principals are important, and some principals are better than others. Especially when it comes to charity, where the person bestowing their generosity has a lot more choices about what to offer than the person taking charity has about what to accept.

50. This happens pretty much any time anyone gets into an argument about what feminism might involve or what grounds on which feminists might criticize other feminists. And I can remember at least one or two occasions on which you have shown up here to raise the same red herring. I’m tired of it.

    If I argue that “marriage” should not exclude partnerships between two men or two women, I am not arguing that it should include man-on-boxturtle action.

    If I argue that “woman” should not exclude Sylvia Rivera, I am not arguing that it should include Chuck Norris.

    If I argue that “high art” should not exclude Maus, I am not arguing that it should include Jack Chick tracts.

    Along the same lines, if I argue that “feminist” should not exclude certain people or certain actions, I am not arguing that there is no such thing as “feminism” or that it is categorically improper to argue in favor of any boundaries around the concept at all.

    For fuck’s sake. So stop, just stop, pretending that there’s no difference between the two. It’s an insult to me, the Lyon-Martins, Sylvia Rivera, Art Spiegelman, and Chuck Norris’ massive biceps. And it’s really fucking irritating.

    Ok, then what shouldn’t be included as feminist? Or what should be? I’ve seen everything from feminists for life to suicide girls(which resells pictures of the women without their permission) being touted as feminist, so I’m skeptical. Of course, I have a hard time feeling trust for the type of person who needs a lot of hand holding to say “hey, let’s fight for women’s rights’ because when the going gets tough, do I really want a bunch of ladies who are not in it to win it?

51. “I’ve seen everything from feminists for life to suicide girls(which resells pictures of the women without their permission) being touted as feminist, so I’m skeptical.”

    as a former suicide girl, i can explain that one. it basically boils down to “dont always beleive what the media tells you”. they adopted the “feminism” label to basically get girls to take there clothes off. theres many articles on how there really not feminist at all, it was just a marketing ploy. if you look at there contract its pretty obvious (since basically they own you after you sign it, and even if you leave, they still own the name you used). if you did some research on it, there anti feminism would be obvious, and not even up for debate for whats feminist and what isnt

52. Ok, then what shouldn’t be included as feminist? Or what should be? I’ve seen everything from feminists for life to suicide girls(which resells pictures of the women without their permission) being touted as feminist, so I’m skeptical. Of course, I have a hard time feeling trust for the type of person who needs a lot of hand holding to say “hey, let’s fight for women’s rights’ because when the going gets tough, do I really want a bunch of ladies who are not in it to win it?

    Seriously, do you just have a macro somewhere? Skeptical of what? Of me? Why did you bring the Suicide Girls up? Is this post about them? Do they volunteer?

    I’ve got my own long list of stuff that isn’t feminist; I think you’ve got one, too. I suspect they’re not actually all that dissimilar. Mine includes pro-lifers along with many other things. I have commented frequently on things as either feminist or unfeminist on this very blog. Again, stop talking to me as though I’ve just said that there is no such thing as unfeminist.

53. Thanks for the update Piny. And the apology. I appreciate it.

54. I brought them up because I’m defining my boundaries here. Suicide Girls represents the attack from the “but I wannas” who basically think feminism is a new hip branding strategy for themselves or for their company, and the feminists for lifers, well, we both know why they suck.

    Ok, I have an idea. Imagine I have come down from outer space. Explain who isn’t a feminist.

55. I also have a hard time not responding to your hot temper, piny. When you have a hot temper, my own hot temper engages and we start to argue. Or does my hot temper make your hot temper engage?

Comments are currently closed.