Up Front: Say When
522 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
recordari, in reply to
I think that it’s simply polite to refer to people using the labels which they assign to themselves. So once I was apprised of Emma’s (former) preference not to use the label ‘feminist’, I tried not to use it in respect of her.
Can I just say this is what I was trying to convey earlier.
It's my label, and I'll cry 'feminist' if I want to. Or not.
-
I think (with the proviso that I can and will be wrong at times) that the label no longer works properly
I know it's not a direct analogy, but I always die a little inside every time I see "queer" used as a shorthand for 'all not heteronormative people' -- and I can respect but remain unconvinced by all the arguments that you can recontextualise a vile hate-term like that, any more than I accept referring to myself as a nigger takes the sting out of that hate-bomb. (Which is a whole other can of linguistic worms.)
In the end, hey, if it works for you let's agree to disagree and move on. Goes back to a way that I can respect the person's right to make a choice while not always agreeing with, or even fully understanding, their reasons of doing it.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
presumptuous
Moi????
Yeah of course it is. Hence the doubt I have about it. But my problem still stands, when you say you're a feminist you mean something different from when Deborah says she is a feminist and when Jacqui says ...
Now if you each take the time to tell me what you mean by that word and I take the time to listen then it's all good. And really I'm happy to take that time. But if all I had was your name and the word feminist then the image I have of you would be wrong. If I took just your definition then my image of Deborah would be wrong.
If you are going to have a label and have it mean something to other people then it kind of needs to be consistent ... doesn't it? Or does it not matter a damn if my image is wrong when you use that label?
You are of course right that you can use whatever word you want to describe yourself and I have no real problem with using that word to describe you if that's what you want me to do (providing I don't believe it to be offensive). But it still makes my head hurt because effectively I'm just using a word that I can't know the meaning of ... for you.
BTW I'm trying really hard not to be offensive about any of this and if the discussion does offend in some way, I'm happy to stop. It would be easier to have the discussion with hand waving and wine.
-
I'm feeling eirôneia has entered this thread.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
But my problem still stands, when you say you're a feminist you mean something different from when Deborah says she is a feminist and when Jacqui says
I'm sorry - how is that a problem? They may all mean different things, but in applying the label to themselves they're indicating that they care more to claim the things that feminists have in common than to disclaim the things that set them apart.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
It would be easier to have the discussion with hand waving and wine.
Or really, just the wine and whatever comes up with it.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I'm feeling eirôneia has entered this thread.
I think that word means something different to you than to me. I'm not trying to hide anything.
-
Feminism is a broad church, Bart. There’s room in it for lots of variations. A long long time ago, nearly four years ago in fact, I wrote a long comment here about feminisms: comment on feminisms. It covers quite a lot of the ground that we’re covering here today, though there are some things that I wrote back then that I wouldn’t write again today, because my thinking and approach has moved on a little (as it should).
I think that part of the difficulty may be that you are looking for one meaning for feminism, ‘though I may be mistaken about that. If I am, I’m sorry for attributing views / concerns to you that are not your own.
I don’t think that there is a single meaning of ’feminism’, other than the broad one of assuming that women are, and should be treated, as social, economic, legal and moral equals to men. In that regard, if you have time, then the link that Megan posted earlier today is really worth taking a look at: Yes you are.
-
recordari, in reply to
eirôneia
I find if you say it slowly with punctuation, it sums up about where I am right now quite nicely.
e, ir, ô! n, e... i, a?
To the music of From Scratch.
-
It would be easier to have the discussion with hand waving and wine.
Well, Megan and I just got given free wine with lunch (and any assumptions about why that was arrived at without asking us would be Just Plain Wrong, possibly with a sprinkling of 'insulting') so... yeah.
I've talked about labelling before, and while my label use has changed (and without sex-positive blogs and events never would have) my views on labelling have not: labels are good and bad. They simplify, but on the other hand, they also simplify. It's a mixed bag. For me I find the solution is to not get too hung up on them.
That said, "baywatch feminist" is a label I'm going to assume is meant to be insulting, therefore I'm not happy to have it applied.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
That said, "baywatch feminist" is a label I'm going to assume is meant to be insulting, therefore I'm not happy to have it applied.
There should totally be a "MacGyver feminist" label.
[spelling of show edited after severe off line reprimand]
-
Danielle, in reply to
It wasn't *severe*, dude. I just like to have my pointless Gen-X pop-cultural footnotes correctly spelled.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I think that word means something different to you than to me. I'm not trying to hide anything.
Seems so, it doesn't mean secrets to me. It's just the state Plato's Socrates dragged his victims into, rather like confusion, a loss of confidence in one's own definitions, and uncertainty about a way forward. It was not pointed at you, I'm suggesting it's feeling going round. I think deconstruction can often lead to it, that's usually how Platonic dialogs begin. Plato seemed to think it was a beginning point of wisdom when you felt like you didn't know anything.
I'm not so sure, it seems like an extremely vulnerable moment. That doesn't seem like a good time to be making big choices.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Oh so you're a Gen-X pop-culture feminist ...
<In the voice of Edmund when he sees the scythe>
-
I think enough has probably been said here about labels, but I just had one thing to add: seems to me there's no label that can take the place of a proper conversation about anyone's views. If I say I'm a feminist, I don't expect that label to magically inform you of all my views on gender and power, it's only a place to start talking about those things. Yes, I believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of gender...but exactly what I mean by that, and the particular issues I'm passionate about, you'll have to talk to me to find out. No one with any sense expects all feminists to agree, or even necessarily have much in common except the basic aim of gender equality. But diversity among feminists and feminisms doesn't make those terms meaningless.
And crikey, if we want to change the world, we have to work together. When I see a post like that recent one of Maia's on The Hand Mirror, it makes me feel sad and hopeless. When feminists viciously attack other feminists over trivialities, patriarchy wins.
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
It's very funny, Lilith, because I read that most recent post, and I thought "This shit is still going on 30 years later?". Because when I was part of the Unifems, that was kind of how the dialogues went, alot of the time. Which is why I left.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Is patriarchy the polar opposite of feminism?
I suspect the topology is more complicated and may involve string theory...
I'm clearly getting to hot to think seriously.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Patriarchy is the system of males being privileged over females: it's what feminism aims to overthrow. Analogously, socialism aims to overthrow class privilege. The wikipedia page on patriarchy explains in more detail.
-
It is about knowing that a woman is the equal of a man in art, at work, and under the law, whether you say it out loud or not — but for God's sake start saying it out loud already. You are a feminist
Thanks for this link, Megan M. I'd take issue with the 'knowing' is enough to be considered a feminist and say speaking and acting - recommended at the end - is a big part of 'being a feminist'.
Feminism is a political movement where 'political' includes every damn emancipation and equality-engendering action in every conceivable place from the bed to the battlefield to the boardroom to the playground - couldn't think of a P word - and everything in between. Political implies a challenge to the status quo. It's hard to challenge just by 'knowing.'
And the other tricky thing about being a feminist is that inaction (words are action, of course) kind of implies consent with the way things are and that kind of disqualifies you from being able to claim to your friends - when it suits you - that you are a feminist. That said, the statement 'I am feminist' is an action and a good place to start - providing you mean it. Of course, given the pejorative connotations of the term 'feminist' I doubt we'll be bothered by too many false declarations.
For those who really(as opposed to conveniently) think a penis disqualifies them from said speaking and acting and identifying as a feminist, I feel the best thing to do would be to direct you to The Subjection of Women , the 1840 feminist treatise by arguably the most important feminist of the first wave, John Stuart Mill. If you prefer something more current I'd recommend Jock Phillips' A Man's Country?(1996), an excellent - and unique - feminist reflection on the history of the Pakeha male. Sadly not much feminism written by chaps before, between or since.
Feminism is a bit like the tango, it takes two - male and female, cock and twat. Defining feminist politics as a 'women's issue', is just one more way of trivialising and marginalising the issues to leave the chaps - and a few token women - to get on with the real business of politics, law, economics, war, sport, even entertainment FFS! How many TV programmes have a female host? Bugger all. How many have not only a male host but a panel of male commentators, judges, jokers, whatever, with a token female or two (if you're lucky)? Most of them.
If this kind of blatant discrimination doesn't piss you off and give you a clue as to the extent of the sexism involved in the Tamihere-type claim that 'feminism has gone too far', then, well, let's just say, you're not much of a feminist.
-
recordari, in reply to
The Subjection of Women , the 1840 feminist treatise by arguably the most important feminist of the first wave, John Stuart Mill.
I think I did actually write an essay on that. Not sure it was 20 pages. It was certainly enlightening, although at 18 it might be questionable how much of it sunk in. Some, at least.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
The Subjection of Women , the 1840 feminist treatise by arguably the most important feminist of the first wave, John Stuart Mill.
Actually, it was 1861, published 1869, according to wikipedia. And if you want to look at first-wave feminist treatises, it's hard to go past Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman from 1792.
And Sojourner Truth's Ain't I A Woman? speech from 1851.
ETA: I'm not saying JSM, and a number of other men, haven't made valuable contributions to feminist theory, politics, and debate, but I wouldn't give them more importance than the women who have done so. Not wanting men to speak for women has been a key issue addressed by feminism!
-
inaction (words are action, of course) kind of implies consent with the way things are and that kind of disqualifies you from being able to claim to your friends – when it suits you – that you are a feminist
I usually do my friends the courtesy of believing them when they say they're feminists, rather than beadily keeping a tally of their appropriately feminist actions.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
And if you want to look at first-wave feminist treatises, it's hard to go past Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman from 1792.
What, no love for my homie Christine de Pizan (1365-1430)?
-
recordari, in reply to
My mother has spent a lot of time reading about, or reading Christine de Pisan (1363 – c. 1430). If you want a full bingo card, Wikipedia has this helpful list.
What, no love for my homie Christine de Pizan (1365-1430)?
ETA: [Removed unseemly outburst] Yes, lots of love in our household.
I mean snap. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I mean snap.
Word. I suspect people crowding to cite old Christine isn't exactly a very common occurrence.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.