Feminism – Page 3

Feminism and Super Tuesday

I have a piece up in Alternet about the feminist vote on Super Tuesday. I don’t stake out much of a position; it’s more an outline of where feminists are falling and what the divisive issues are.

Also worth checking out: Robin Morgan’s Goodby to All That (part 2), about why she’s voting for Clinton, and Laura Flanders’ response, wherein she argues that Clinton’s policies have actually not been all that great for women around the world.

Ann has a great (succinct) run-down of who feminists are voting for. (Damn you, Ann, why was this not up last night when I was writing my Alternet piece? You could have done all my research for me…)

Like Zuzu, I remain undecided. And for the same reasons as Zuzu — I like Clinton’s health care plan better, but Obama’s foreign policy stances are much more responsible. I’m (unsurprisingly) leaning Obama, though, for a few reasons:

1. Clinton’s foreign policy positions, including her eagerness to embrace the “Iran is next” threats and her refusal to take responsibility for her Iraq war vote, scare me.
2. Both of them have great records on choice, but the Clinton campaign’s smearing of Obama’s decision to vote “present” on an important abortion rights vote in Illinois also turns me off — Obama’s vote was part of a NARAL-organized strategy.
3. Rhetoric is important in presidential campaigns and in presidencies. It sounds silly, but at the end of the day, a president is an important figurehead whose rhetoric can make or break national unity. Obama has that thing. He is somehow able to connect with people, and he understands which messages are important to focus on. Policy positions are obviously the most important thing, but once those are solid — and Obama’s are — how you talk about them really matters a lot in getting stuff done.
4. For all of the great things that Hillary Clinton has done for women — and I don’t want to under-play those things, because she has done quite a bit — she has also made and supported decisions that sell some women out. The prime example is Clintonian “Welfare Reform,” which cut off aid to many, many low-income women. It also did significant harm to immigrant communities. And, yes, that was Bill Clinton’s policy — but Hillary came out in very public support of it. I don’t want a president who is so quick to throw poor women and immigrant women’s interests away. And Clinton is definitely not ideal on immigrant rights.

Of course, on the other hand, I’m absolutely thrilled with the prospect of a Democratic female president, and if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will work very hard for her and my heart will certainly be 100 percent in it. She has worked hard for this. She has done everything right, in the face of sexist slams and horrendous attacks. She’s been walking on a tightrope for years, and she’s had to make some hard compromises. I can understand that, and I think that a lot of feminists (myself included) are harder on Clinton because our expectations for her are so very high. We want her to be the perfect feminist, and instead she’s an excellent politician.

I do think there’s a lot of value in having a female figureheard in office, and arguments that “the feminist thing to do is to vote for whoever you like better” don’t really appeal to me. Feminists have long championed the importance of women in positions of power, and letters like this one illustrate why it’s so important to have positive, powerful female role models.

But it’s also important to have strong role models of color, and to have a president who represents your values. I will work very hard for whoever wins. I will be satisfied with either candidate. But I think that I’ll be excited if Obama gets the nomination, and that, for me, makes all the difference.

Super Tuesday stuff will be going up on Alternet throughout the day, so keep checking back.

Intersecting Identities and Feminist Identification

Although I identify as feminist, there are times when I feel alienated from feminism—or perhaps I should say, some of the narratives of dominant feminism (even when those expressions don’t necessarily come from the mainstream organizations, spokespeople, or media that traditionally represent feminism). I feel like the Outsider in a movement that should feel like home. My view is that our expressions of feminism (and everything else) is intimately connected to our identities; that it is impossible to separate those various facets of identity from one another—that those parts of ourselves are indelibly integrated into a whole; that feminism is necessary for us and the world; and that blogs can be an effective way to parse out our conflicts with one another and bridge the gaps in understanding in order that feminism remain a viable movement for positive change. The key word in that last sentence being “can.” I had a couple of posts here from the last time around titled “Like A Natural Woman”, Part 2 and Part 1, written in response to other posts going around the ‘sphere at the time, and today I want to develop those thoughts a little more. Think of it as on-line, old-school consciousness raising. Not as accusations. That isn’t the purpose. The purpose is, to be real, to be whole, and to have a space to come together with other women on the path of feminism and justice. I want to hear you, and I want to be heard. I want to listen to you, and I want to be listened to. I want to know where we converge, diverge, and cross, in order that we build this movement together. So.

When do I feel this disconnect from feminism (or more accurately, its incomplete representation)?

the dominant historical narratives of feminism leave my ancestors out. A whole lot of other people’s ancestors, too. While the abolitionists, Quakers, and temperance activists are always mentioned in U.S. narratives, immigrant women and women in the labor and/or socialist movements do not receive the recognition they should. The effect of colonialism on women and the early feminist movement gets short shrift. What about women who fought against (even took up arms against) colonial masters—where are they? Partisan women? The indelible influence of indigenous culture (especially the Iroquois Confederacy) on the development of feminism in the United States. It’s as if feminism is being described to me as something that others did on behalf of my godmothers,* not as a movement that they also contributed to.

the primacy of a narrow definition of reproductive “choice” as meaning “the ability to choose to have an abortion,” rather than the more comprehensive phrase reproductive justice, that encompasses all facets of reproductive choice and parenting. See here for a description.

a dismissive attitude towards mothers and our struggles/concerns. The same dismissive attitude toward children. I perceive a certain assumption in some feminist quarters that women who are mothers have acquiesed to “the patriarchy” with our very bodies. I read/see/hear a lot of lip service towards feminist goals specifically pertaining to mothers and children, yet see little concrete action in that direction coming from mainstream feminist organizations. There are marches to maintain abortion rights; why are there not also marches to obtain universal childcare? School hours, especially in elementary school, that matches the typical work hours?

unaddressed classism. I cringed/cursed/growled/gnashed my teeth awhile back during threads like this one (and yes, I lost my temper during that one) that intimated that dependent-care deductions “incentivize” having children. Those deductions were a political coup won for all workers by the CIO back in the fifties. That is history that needs to be remembered by feminists. Where was that strong denunciation of welfare deform, that makes it that much harder for a woman on welfare to obtain her best chance at economic self-sufficiency—a college degree? Ask the average working-class woman what is the most pressing concern facing women, and you are likely to receive the answer making ends meet. “An Injury to One is an Injury to All.”

unaddressed racism and/or racialized marginalization of other women. I’m not seeing enough prime space devoted in feminist media on issues specific to or primarily concerning women of color—for example, how child welfare agencies work against the interests of mothers of color. How the portrayal of undocumented workers as dangerous criminals is affecting women in immigrant communities (not to mention the separation of families). I’m seeing too many examples of racialized shorthand for women’s oppression, as “hijab” is used to represent an extreme sanction of women, or “machisimo” is used to provide a contrast to the supposedly kinder, gentler white man.

the role of men remains unaddressed in most feminist circles. Feminism is in many respects a reaction of women to the increased presence of industrialization/colonization, and the anomie it engendered. It changed the landscape for men also. The labor movement did organize around issues important to men in a way similar to feminist movement (with the best of the labor movement actively coordinating both men’s and women’s struggles into a cohesive whole), yet the destructive impact of the oppression of the labor movement had massive repercussions for labor as a unified vehicle for justice. Why shouldn’t feminism move to bridge that gap? Men can also be co-authors of the movement for justice; men are also subject to oppression(s).

the momentum for integrating women into nontraditional fields has dissipated, and mainstream feminism seems to assume that the important battles have been won in that regard; the concerns of the remaining intrepid feminists are strictly minor-league. What happened? Why is this no longer in the forefront of feminist concerns?

too much gatekeeping of female sexuality and its various expressions. This irritating facet of antifeminist thought pattern has contaminated feminist minds as well (and how could it not, as we are inundated with negative, even conflicting, messages about female sexuality throughout our lives?).

assumptions that religious or spiritual practice/belief is necessarily “patriarchal.” Or inherently antifeminist. Again, yet another form of gatekeeping, or “will the authentic feminist please stand up?” Bah.

Now, those are just the critiques of one woman, though I’m sure I’m not alone in holding them. And those critiques stem directly from my intersecting identities; my history, my upbringing, my family of origin, my neighborhood(s), my chosen communities, my various educations and life experiences, and probably also some innate personality characteristics. I maintain that such influences can’t be parsed out or ranked in order of importance; they all come together in my unified Self. Some folks may think it’s telling that in descriptions of myself, I invariably list “Sicilian-American” first, but I don’t know that that particular part of me is the most important—it’s just the most handy modifier for the other descriptions that follow. It has the danger of introducing stereotypes and negative assumptions–some of which I may even be unaware of–yet it remains the best shorthand available for assuring a certain accuracy (even with the flaw of stereotype).

And why should those identities matter? Because like it or not, they do. I’m bringing my whole damn self to this table, and I’m sitting at this table, not standing in the kitchen (though I may be stirring the pot). I’m still determined to identify as feminist, though I may be viewed by others (with better credentials) as an obstacle to feminist movement, or as disloyal even, for having the audacity to talk out of class. I think it is important to maintain identification as a feminist, and to raise my voice whether in unison or in opposition as a feminist, within feminism. I plan to co-create feminism along with my sisters, and brothers. I may not fit a manufactured image of feminism—but then, who manufactured those images? And who owns feminism?

Questions: Do you identify as feminist? If so, why? If not, what would have to change within feminism to gain your full participation?

I now cede the floor.

*shamelessly stolen from Lucia Chiavola Birnbaum, and used in place of “foremothers”

It helps to read first, then “report”

Boy was I surprised to wake up this morning and read this in a Welsh newspaper:

When John Cleese, in the film Life of Brian, posed the question, “what have the Romans done for us?”, he was quickly disabused of his take on things – nothing – by a long list of benefits their regime had bought. It could be argued that some feel the same about feminism; one post on a blog in response to the NY Times article reads “feminists made their bed. Now they have to lie on it, alone, with their cats.” Ouch.

You might be surprised to know that this was not written by a misogynistic male, but a female called Jill with sound feminist credentials, who blogs entertainingly at feministe.com. Which, apart from the meow factor, lends it a little weight. If the research is to be believed, all the advances the bra burning generation have bought us – equal rights, equal pay, independence and choice – have actually, emotionally, left us worse off.

Confused as to how I could have possibly written anything along those lines, I went back and read the post she’s quoting. And whaddaya know — the quote she attributes to me is, in fact, me quoting a misogynistic male.

She also got the website wrong.

I wrote an email to the news editor asking for a correction. We’ll see if anything comes of it.

UPDATE: They fixed it.

Help a Humanist

A million thanks to Dr. Confused for guest-blogging while I’m on vacation* and, in a few days, studying for exams. I won’t be posting for the next few days, but perhaps I’ll drop in occasionally next week. In the meantime, we have a reader request for assistence, and I thought I’d turn it over to you all:

My friend is pretty awesome but privileged enough (white, male, Christian, middle class, etc.) that he has trouble identifying his own privilege and identifying lack of privilege in others. He doesn’t believe the patriarchy exists, for example, and whenever I try to explain it to him I just get really upset and start crying. Not productive. I think the most annoying thing, though, is that he professes to believe in the goals of feminism but thinks it should be called… humanism. He also believes that rampant “misandry” gives some credence to MRAs. Ugh. How can I begin to guide him in the right direction? I don’t think he’s a lost cause. If you can point me towards a previous post or pose the question on a thread or something, I would be so grateful. I don’t even know where to begin. Thanks!

Thoughts? Suggestions?

*If anyone has any Lisbon tips, I’d love to hear them!

Why feminism is good for everybody, part 2954

Divorce rates are the lowest they’ve been since the 1970s, and marriages are more stable.

There are certainly myriad reasons why marriages are stronger now than thirty years ago, but I’d imagine that chief among them are things heavily influenced by feminism. As traditional gender roles expand, women and men have greater choice in who they marry. Men no longer shoulder the burden of being the sole breadwinner, and women are no longer expected to do all of the home and child-care. Women are going to college and grad school in record numbers, and are meeting people with whom they are share genuine interests and goals. People are delaying marriage, and marriages entered into later in life tend to be more stable and longer-lasting. Marriage is increasingly optional, and so more couples enter into it when they want to, instead of getting married so that they can escape social pressure or have children or live together or have sex without guilt. And couples can have sex for pleasure instead of constantly fearing another pregnancy, making marriage very much an institution for the two people who enter into it, and, ideally, fostering families who can choose to have children when they’re ready (which obviously makes for happier parents).

Next step: Making this institution open to everyone.

Something I never really understood…

With regards to feminism and feminists.

A huge part of feminist thought, or so I’ve been led to believe, is body acceptance for women; the thought that a woman should be encouraged to feel comfortable in her own skin and not deride, dislike, or disdain her own body and appearance. There is a great deal of encouragement for women to learn to if not love, at least like or accept their appearance, and dress in whatever manner they choose, wear their hair as they like, “go natural” (not shave, avoid make up, ect) as they choose. And you know, I think this is great. I really do. If a person is happy with and accepting of their looks, whatever they look like, I think it’s wonderful.

There is also the thought that a woman should not be judged or mocked for her appearance, and while her choices with regards to how she presents herself or what she may or may not do to modify her natural body can be questioned, she should not be judged or made fun of or disregarded because of those choices. One can ask why (or why not) a woman wears make up, or gets body waxes, or gets tattoos, works out or diets, gets piercings, dyes her hair or gets a nose job, exploration into the “whys” is…acceptable…but I’ve often seen feminists say that a woman, no matter who she is or how she looks or what beauty rituals she does, or does not, engage in, well, she should not be judged, mocked, or made fun of.

But that happens, even amid feminist circles. And rarely is the woman who does not shave, or diet, or wear make up who is mocked, it is the woman who does. Often times being thin, via nature or diet or time in a gym is thought of something horrible. The intelligence of women who wear make up or get any sort of cosmetic surgery is guestioned, and often they are made fun of. Women who enage in any sort of “Patriarchy Approved” grooming or body ritual, well, when they admit it, they appologize for it. They are appologetic or ashamed of being thin, or wearing eyeliner, or having blonde hair.

And I wonder why. If a woman is comfortable and happy not shaving, should we not be happy for her and support her? If a woman is comfortable and happy with a body she has because she works out three times a week, should we not be happy for and support her? If a woman likes her “cranberry frost” lipstick and the way it makes her look and feel, shouldn’t we just be glad she is happy with it? If a woman is happy and comfortable letting her hair go grey as she ages, shouldn’t we just say “great”?

I understand that with conventional beauty standards it is important to instill in women and girls that there is more to body comfort and beauty that what the media dictates, because truth is, women of all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, and “styles” are beautiful and that wider realm of beauty and comfort should be encouraged to flourish and grow. No woman should feel ashamed of the way they look or what they wear, but I often feel as if perhaps this has spun slightly out of control in some aspects. When a woman who is naturally blonde or naturally thin is applogizing for it, it seems to me as if something his gone wrong here. It seems like an odd sort of backlash to what was supposed to be a mode of thought that would make women more comfortable in their own skins, no matter their shape, size, mode of dress, or alterations. One can read feminist lit of all types, from books to blogs, and see this odd backlash, feminist people calling women bimbos, porno barbies, sticks; women disdaining their own natural attributes that fall within the realms of conventional beauty, things such as being tall, or thin, or curvy or blonde…

And it makes me wonder whatever happened to women, all women, being happy with their bodies?

Or is this just one of those things I find myself pondering? And if so, what did I miss?

Because I promised…

Way back when I was tagged to be a guest-blogger here, I said that I would write some race-relations 101 posts.

I have some ideas (and I’m hoping to flesh out at least one of them today), but I’d like to know what there’s an interest in too. I know there isn’t a race equivalent of tigtog’s brilliant Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog, and this series is probably not going to get anywhere near that involved… but I’d like to see what we come up with nonetheless.

Are there any questions you’re just burning to have answered? They don’t actually have to be 101, they just have to be questions.

(Of course, I’m not claiming to speak for all Brown people when I write this. But I’m wicked good with a Google search, and I like research better than I like my job.)

Gotta start somewhere

I’m going to introduce myself with my first guest post this week because I’m still a little intimidated by writing for such a big audience, and if there’s something I don’t have trouble writing about, it’s myself.

My name is Sara Anderson, and I write the blog F-words (not to be confused with thefword.co.uk and the-f-word.org). I live in Idaho, am in my mid-twenties, and work in veterinary diagnostics. I’m interested in absolutely everything except money and sports, but the subtitle to my blog describes best what I write: feminism, food, fact and fiction. Being a liberal in Idaho can be trying at times, but blogging has been a great tool for helping this political junkie transition into political activism. And when things get too depressing, I can blog about beer, burgers and baking.

An Open Letter to Anonymous.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your organized campaign to silence us. That you would choose to devote so many hours and resources to your illegal and ill-fated efforts toward our demise is the highest compliment you could pay us. It tells us that you think our movement is powerful, and that we are a significant threat to your way of life.

You are correct.

It’s possible you will even succeed in silencing me for a while, or temporarily shutting down this blog or others. But if you do, twenty more will take our place. Every move you make, every little email, amplifies our voices and strengthens our movement.

That’s why I just had to take a minute to say thanks. You are a gift to feminism.
xoJaclyn

8/12 UPDATE: I’ve closed the comments on this thread. No one seems to have anything new to say to each other, and I’m honestly not interested in giving Anon any more airtime or attention. Thanks for all the thoughtful discussion, both challenging and supportive.

5,000th Post!

This is the 5,000th post at Feministe. Way to go, ladies and gents.

I’ve been here for 2 1/2 years now, and feel really lucky to have inherited such a dynamic, challenging and supportive space. Lauren created a great community here, piny and zuzu built on it, and it’s been pretty incredible to watch it shift and change and grow. I started blogging because I was bored at a summer desk job I had in college; almost four years later, blogging has become a major part of my day-to-day life. I love writing here. I love reading through the comments and seeing the reactions, responses and thoughts of so many intelligent, interesting people. I love that I’ve learned more about feminism from blogging and reading feminist blogs than I did in four years of gender studies courses.

Feministe has become a full-time (but unpaid) job for me. It requires hours every day of posting, emailing and managing various odds and ends, not to mention the hours I spend thinking about the comments you all make, how I could have done this or that better, what I think about some issue that someone here brought up that I had never before considered. It can certainly be stressful, but there’s nothing I’d rather be doing. It brings me a lot of happiness, and it occupies a lot of my time. It’s been an interesting journey to the point where a large part of my identity is now “feminist blogger.”

5,000 is a pretty big milestone, so I’ll issue all of us who have blogged here a hearty congratulations. It’s been pretty rad. And I’ll issue a big thank-you to the commenters and readers for making this such a great space.

That’s what Feministe means to me. So I’m curious: What does this space mean to you, and how does it fit into your life?