"Coolest 'F' Word Ever Deserves a Fuckin' Shout"

[bcholmes]

I like this post about defining feminism. Even though I disagree strongly with important parts of it. I like the idea that feminism asks something us. That it demands integrity and work.

I like the post even though the author has (in my opinion) written stuff that banally denies the reality of trans experience -- writing it off, as so many have done before, as a function of the patriarchy.

And I like the fact that I like the post, because it makes me keenly aware of something I hold to be true: that while I agree that feminism doesn't just mean whatever you want it to mean, I nonetheless think that feminism is plural and that that's okay.

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

As someone who, when she first heard about transsexuality, assumed the same thing about it, I think it comes from trying to cram new things into your own worldview before actually listening to other people whose experiences might be outside your own.

Yeah, when I was younger I thought the only reason that a woman would want to be a man was that she didn't value being female, or that if a man wanted to be a woman he just thought that there were freedoms that he could never have as a man (esp. relating to emotional expression).

All it took for me to change my mind was someone laying her own experiences on the line and saying that no, that's not how it works, that gender identity and physical sex are independent quantities, and that it's usually impossible to fight what your brain is telling you even if your body says otherwise. I think there was an analogy about phantom limb syndrome in there somewhere, where a brain has a map of the body that is different than the actual body.

I am not sure why a prepackaged worldview would be so important to someone that they can't take someone else's experiences into account. It's not a betrayal of feminism, or a denial that male privilege exists, to consider that transsexuality may be something deeper than just a symptom of a repressive patriarchal society.

You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

-- The Doctor, "Face of Evil"

[sabotabby]

I like the idea that feminism demands integrity and work, but I pretty much disagree with everything else.

She lost me at "spiritual." So even if I won't be celibate for her revolution, I have to believe in the supernatural? Seriously?

She has such an essentialist definition of womanhood—which fits quite neatly into a patriarchal framework, ironically—that I'm half-tempted to go yell at her. But I won't, because I think it's such a marginal definition of feminism in the current context that it isn't worth getting into a flamewar about.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

All the important stuff demands work from us: Feminism, democracy, relationships. And the work makes us better people. A reasonable exchange, IMO.

(I also agree that feminism is plural, and that like other identities, we get to shape it to ourselves, and ourselves to it. I'd a whole lot rather live in a world where people call themselves feminist even if I don't agree with all the details of their self-definition than one where they don't.)

[kightp.livejournal.com]

P.S. I love the "Yes" icon. Every time you use it that wonderful monologue plays in my head. I really need to watch the movie again.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

You just said everything I was going to say. :)

[cigfran-lwyd.livejournal.com]

oh, frackin' yawn.

look, i completely support aggressive rants, even - and perhaps in some cases especially - those whose premises i disagree with. the author has every right to say "i know what feminism is and if you don't meet these criteria you're not it and fuck you too."

but she's full of shit. in many of the broad strokes, i get the point and applaud the sentiment. but when she gets down to that laundry list, she's just another pinched, hypernormative xenophobe with an exceptionally self-serving view of sexual identity.

it's just more boundary-patrolling by an ideologue. nothing freaks out a radicalized ism-ist more than the idea that their ism may not be entirely defined by their own worldview.

i came to the conclusion a while ago that "the patriarchy" is a great straw windmill... fantastic for organizing and targeting certain energies, but ultimately a self-defeating model for realworld action.

[rosefox]

but she's full of shit. in many of the broad strokes, i get the point and applaud the sentiment. but when she gets down to that laundry list, she's just another pinched, hypernormative xenophobe with an exceptionally self-serving view of sexual identity.

Yep, this.

And some of the choices are just weird! "Feminists oppose: # male violence # violence against women and children" but what, violence against men by women is okay? Why not just be anti-violence?

As for putting sadomasochism on that list, I would like to state for the record that the single thing that has done the most by far for my sense of being an empowered woman is learning how to safely and consensually beat people up. Before that, I didn't believe that I was ever allowed to be aggressive or demonstrate physical strength (except in the service of being useful to someone else) and I had no idea what it was like to have legitimate, respected authority in any situation. I also had no concept of a romantic relationship that didn't rely on me being yielding and submissive in some sense. BDSM has counteracted every single one of those damaging cultural lessons. I've been able to apply what I've learned from BDSM in my everyday life, too, and it's made me a more capable, more confident, and happier woman. Not to mention that the person who has supported me the most on this journey is my husband.

So yeah, not sure how you get from a post that is basically all about oppressing women--because that sort of "I get to define you" attitude is exactly the kind of patriarchal oppressive bullshit that I fight against every day--to "feminism is plural".

[rosefox]

The author also wrote, in comments:

And it's just not true that any woman "can't" be a lesbian. ANY WOMAN CAN BE A LESBIAN. Many women WON'T be lesbians for a whole bunch of reasons, but it's not a matter of not being able to do it. It's a matter of unwillingness to do it.

AUGH WTF.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

I second your AUGH! That comment just made me cringe. It displays such a complete lack of understanding of human sexuality at very rudimentary levels. You cannot force sexual attraction.

[rosefox]

You also can't inhibit it when it exists, or not without a lot of unpleasant consequences. Even if I only ever have sex with women for the rest of my life, I'm not going to stop having the hots for men, and so I'm not going to be a lesbian. (Even if my husband occasionally teases me about how I'm "really a lesbian" and he's just been "grandfathered in" from the days when my attractions were more 50/50.)

[firecat]

Thanks for talking about what you liked about the post, so I could see past the stuff I disagreed with. I agree that feminism demands integrity and work and is plural, and I disagree with a lot of the specific things that she says a feminist must support and oppose.

This sort of conversation happens a lot in the fat community too, with people positioned in various points along a spectrum of "Can you be fat-accepting and still [insert weight loss goal or feeling here]?" I think the conversations are really important. I also think that when they take over and drown out all the other conversations, they are damaging.

[surelars.livejournal.com]

I really, really like the first section. Great stuff about not accepting humpty-dumpty attitudes to important concepts (or language in general, I might add). And a necessary point about (as kightp generalizes) important stuff requiring work, integrity, and more work. Waving the flag is not enough. This is a good reminder, and well put - indignation and all.

The rest of it? Well, it just snarks itself. It like zoom, we're back to the 70s. But, also, it reminded me of the roots of some of the things that passes for "leftist" and "feminism" here today.

[surelars.livejournal.com]

Yes. That was what really sent me back in time. Speak of smug, highly-evolved supremacism.

I didn't read beyond that. I was having fun, but I didn't want the *headdesk* to give me a headache.

[redbird]

I suppose that if she's prepared to redefine "lesbian" to mean "woman who doesn't have sex with men" rather than "woman who is sexually attracted only or mostly to women" (not everyone agrees on what level of attraction to both counts as bisexual), she can make that work. But that's like asserting that celibate lesbians are "really" heterosexual.