(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

ANNOUNCEMENT: The next clever, ambitious, active, excited, and learned woman on my flist who calls feminism militant and man-hating is going to get SMACKED IN THE FACE.

LADIES. DON'T BUY INTO THE PROPAGANDA. FEMINISM IS GOOD FOR WOMEN, MEN, CHILDREN, ANIMALS, AND OTHER LIVING THINGS.

Comments

How many non-intelligent women are on your friends list anyway?

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside the issue of whether 'man-hating' is good or not, does the word 'militant' really have such negative connotations for you?

Not that many. That's the freakin' problem.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

It does in conjunction with feminism. And generally, a bit, but mostly I'm frustrated by that presentation of feminism - which isn't a unified movement anyway.

Re: Not that many. That's the freakin' problem.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I know a lot of anti-feminists talk about 'militant feminism' as a synonym for 'feminazi', but the combination of militancy and feminism doesn't only exist in their minds and is, in my opinion, quite legitimate. Of course 'militancy' in general is a pretty vague term, but I feel the same way about people who take 'militant' to mean 'bomb throwing pyscho' as I think you feel about people who take 'feminist' to mean 'somebody who believes in female superiority'.

The term I usually use to describe anti-male ideology is 'matriarchy'. But this in itself is complicated, because for many people matriarchy has a positive meaning - although patriarchy doesn't, and I find that puzzling.

Re: Not that many. That's the freakin' problem.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way about people who take 'militant' to mean 'bomb throwing pyscho' as I think you feel about people who take 'feminist' to mean 'somebody who believes in female superiority'.

The trouble is that I think the same kinds of people use both words in the ways we dislike - there is valid, extant militant feminism, but that's not what they mean when they use those words to describe feminism in general.

Presumably because matriarchy still refers to a plain old, not that common, system where women govern, whereas patriarchy refers to an elaborate, non-theoretical, social conditioning system. As I understand it anyway.

Re: Not that many. That's the freakin' problem.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

The trouble is that I think the same kinds of people use both words in the ways we dislike - there is valid, extant militant feminism, but that's not what they mean when they use those words to describe feminism in general.

When somebody throws around accusations of militant feminism they're usually making two assertions:

1) Militancy is illegitimate. (So in a way this is more of an attack on militancy in general than on feminism in general, even if in practice they consider all feminism to be militant)
2) Militant feminism is influential on a given policy or practice, or just influential in general.

Neither of these are true and, in my opinion, they need to be rebuked strongly, and equally. So one could either say 'no, that isn't militant feminism, but what if it was? What's wrong with militant feminism?'. Or 'Militant feminists would want X policy, which is more moderate than the policy you're referring to'. It's simpler to say 'no, this isn't militant feminism, this is non-militant feminism', but that is implicitly implying that militant feminism is bad, and in the long run is dangerous because in my opinion non-militant feminism may not be able to end patriarchy, so militant feminism, while not a necessity, is necessary to keep as an option (so to speak).

But really when people say 'militant feminism' they usually aren't talking about militancy as a tactic or an ideology, they're theorising a feminism that believes men are biologically inferior. I won't go so far to say that such an opinion doesn't exist, since we do live in a world where people believe in a magic wizard in the sky creating the world in seven days, but it isn't nearly as influential or mainstream as many anti-feminists like to think, and arguably isn't feminism at all. The idea that only a 'matriarchist' (as I define it) would want a woman's only gym at a University is retarded, and yet it's one of the most popular issues on which these accusations are hurled around.

[blademistress.livejournal.com]

Sadly, in my feminism class I had to explain to the lecturer how we needed to reclaim the word feminist from the idiots who think it means man-hater.

Mind you, in the tutorial for that class I was helping get the DVD player to work and one girl said "We need a man!" without a trace of irony. *sigh*

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

nnnnnnngh. I would have choked a bitch.

The problem is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with, say, my best friend going to her boyfriend who's a cosc major for help with her computer. Or your classmate needing help with the DVD player. But it becomes a problem when most girls are asking their boyfriends. Grr.

[blademistress.livejournal.com]

That class made me angry for so many reasons. The refused to even acknowledge that they were assuming their arguments based on difference feminism which, yes, is really really important. Gah.

Exactly. The problem is when girls assume they can't ever do it (it's too haaaaard, girls can never do that) and so not only refuse to learn, but then when another girl attempts it and doesn't get it done in three seconds (it took me a couple minutes because of a stupid switch thing I hadn't noticed) they immediately jump to the conclusion not that I can't do it, but the entirety of the female gender can't do it.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

And difference feminism (or what I understand of it) isn't even close to representing the majority of feminist thought, from what I understand. *tears out hair*

Yeah. I always find it unbelievable when I get confronted by something like that - what, girls can do anything is dead now?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

The problem is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with, say, my best friend going to her boyfriend who's a cosc major for help with her computer.

To be fair, Mike's usual response is to drill me until I don't have to ask him again, which is sometimes useful and sometimes annoying. :P (In a reversal of gender stereotyping, he is very very proud that he has finally trained me to separate my whites and woolens when I do the washing. *g*)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I did say there wasn't anything wrong with it. And how did you know I was talking about you, huh, huh?

OK, I was. Still. :P

in re: whites and woolens, you've obvs. missed important detail: you separate whites from colours, and woolens from plains and jeans and things. I usually do a white wash, two colour washes, and a delicates/woolens wash. Colours should be cold, whites should be hot, and delicates/woolens depends, I tend to do them cold or warm.

washing = hard...

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

in re: whites and woolens, you've obvs. missed important detail: you separate whites from colours, and woolens from plains and jeans and things. I usually do a white wash, two colour washes, and a delicates/woolens wash. Colours should be cold, whites should be hot, and delicates/woolens depends, I tend to do them cold or warm.

Nonono; Mike has taught me to separate into whites, darks, and woolens (three categories.) I'm not that slow on the uptake. :P

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Though we've had disagreements or three about this, I have to say: generalizations are bad! To call all feminists man-haters is the same as saying that anyone who is a lesbian must hate men. WTF.

(And that is a sucky analogy but the lesbians are man-haters thing REALLY FUCKING BOTHERS ME.)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY. I MEAN. !!!

Oh, me too. It's as icky as any other x-marginalised-group-hates-y-dominant-group-which-totally-justifies-y's-bad-behaviour is.

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Indeeeeed.

[domssecondbfast.livejournal.com]

Whoops whoops whoops...that was me. *facepalm*

First of all: apologies. Second of all: you're right. Third of all: my train of thought-style post meant I failed at expressing any of my thoughts properly.

I think we come from different places on this though. My feminist contention/thinking (well, one of them, I'm new to it) is a real dislike of politics and world leadership having to be masculine. I'm not necessarily talking about leaders being men, because, hey sure, I'm saying that when you get a prominent woman she generally got that way by being masculine in policy and attitude. And, well, I know you feel me on that. Um, wow, not being clear. I do have a problem with an interest group (ANY interest group) using the threat of force to get their agenda done.

As much as anything I think the language here lets us down. For better or worse the word 'feminist' has gained a widespread connotation with unreasonableness, balshyness (?), man-hating, angry people etc, which doesn't apply to almost anyone who would think of themselves as feminist. It's the same with pacifism; people associate it with weakness, naivete, hippies, etc. My point is that if we were to give each of these a different name (I'm calling pacifism structural politics just for fun) then it would be possible make the whole debate less inflammatory.

For the record, I love femininity in all things, particularly leadership. I don't think feminism works against men, though I'm aware most people think that's the case. And I love reading the things you write about feminism too because they always make me think about it. You help me add dimensions to my thinking about it all!

I hope that made sense. At the very least what I wrote doesn't represent in full what I mean because my brain was on fire and I had to get all th stuff out on paper. :D

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*handwavy* No, no! Well, yes, sort-of! It was you who sparked the little rant, but like, not in a bad way (and I did think what you were saying was interesting.)

a real dislike of politics and world leadership having to be masculine. I'm not necessarily talking about leaders being men, because, hey sure, I'm saying that when you get a prominent woman she generally got that way by being masculine in policy and attitude.

I do agree with you there, a lot, although in a way that I'm really struggling with - on the one hand, I don't like the fact that women have to be aggressive and stereotypically masculine to get ahead (or the parallel argument that women can't succeed in business because they aren't these things), and on the other hand I resent the fact that women who are aggressive and stereotypically masculine are socially punished for being so. So on the one hand, I want everyone to be able to behave with whatever gender stereotypes feel right for them, and on the other hand I definitely agree that there are intensely "masculine" forces in global politics that can be problematic.

(balshyness = bolshieness? Yeah. Although I don't personally find the word insulting, but in some senses it can be, yeah.)

My point is that if we were to give each of these a different name (I'm calling pacifism structural politics just for fun) then it would be possible make the whole debate less inflammatory.

I think that's really interesting and has a lot of potential! God knows labelling can be one of the most destructive forces around (see: the anti-PC contingent.)

I... don't think I disagree with you at all, in fact (although I do have a tendency to shy away from pro-"femininity" rhetoric because I worry that it gets associated with a particular social construction of women (caring, empathetic, sensitive, child-rearing, nurturing) which can be destructive.)

[domssecondbfast.livejournal.com]

Just read more of your stuff up there and I think our views on this are more closely-aligned than I thought. Yum.

Have you read 'Counselors'? I gave it to my sister for her admission to the bar but I really REALLY wanted to keep it for myself. It's a series of essays by the recipients of a 'women in law' prize in the States and includes Sandra Day-O'Connor and it's just all about the strength these women had in pioneering their field. Which pretty much sums up my kind of feminist-love, I think.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I haven't read it! But I now want to. Thanks for the rec :D

[kitsunerei88]

Ouch.

What happened?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Nothing really - less than nothing. I agreed with a lot of the OP's points. It's just that one thing.

[amchara.livejournal.com]

And what if you prefer not to use the label 'feminist' and yet still subscribe to the ideology? :D Someday I will write up the huge long spiel about why I choose not to label myself a feminist, but that day is not today, when I have an essay and an article due tomorrow morning.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well... I guess to me, that feels a lot like being someone who sleeps with a lot of people of the same gender and yet refusing to identify as gay. Yep, sure, people should absolutely be free to label or not label themselves however they want - but it also, IMO, is a reflection of internalised homophobia. When a large number of social perceptions slam feminism, and then someone stands up and says "Well, I agree with X, X, X, and that women are people, but I'm not a feminist", it contributes to the warped social perceptions of feminism.

[amchara.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that that analogy works exactly in the same way, as homosexuality is more of a... a biological state I guess you could say? Rather than an ideology. You can't be radical gay, a liberal homosexual, or believe in post-modernist or constructivist gayness (they're not mutually exclusive, at least), while you can be all of those as a feminist.

But continuing with that example- they could also identify as bi, queer, two-spirited, pansexual... also perfectly valid labels for identifying what 'sleeps with a lot of people of the same gender' means. I wouldn't say that choosing to label themselves differently means that they have internalized homophobia. Or that it is contributing to warped social perceptions of homosexuality.

I guess I'm saying that one label does not an ideology make. I have no problem with other people calling themselves feminists, I use the word feminist to describe many aspects of the ideology I hold myself (though I often substitute it for gender equality), I may someday choose to call myself a feminist. But today is not the day that I choose to identify certain of my values solely because of my gender, or have others define it that way.

I would like others who identify themselves as feminists to perhaps understand that it's not a completely black and white issue- that it could be seen from a different epistemological paradigm and it's just as valid... yeah, I'm more into gender contructivism/gender critical theory if you couldn't tell. :)

While I don't personally believe that feminism is militant and man-hating, it is acceptable to me to understand that others can see it that way.

[skadi.livejournal.com]

Preach it!