Moments of Permanence - Semi-ranty - a response to something someone posted, but she's away at the moment so no linking

From: eisen Date: June 28th, 2009 12:41 pm (UTC) (Link)

I got nothin'. (Nothing to disagree with, nothing to add, you hit everything I believe in and want to be true, etc.) YOU ARE AWESOME ♥

(Reply)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 28th, 2009 01:03 pm (UTC) (Link)

I too still identify as a feminist and want to change things from within. At the same time I understand why people would want to claim a different label, like womanist. This essay makes a lot of sense to me.

Apologies for my hilarously inappropriate icon.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: rainbow Date: June 28th, 2009 04:29 pm (UTC) (Link)

I love your Nanny Ogg icon!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 28th, 2009 08:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

She's so awesome.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: rainbow Date: June 28th, 2009 04:10 pm (UTC) (Link)

I find both feminist-bashing and some of the modern feminists that seem, to me, to be rather ...shall we say... self-centered as regards their own socioeconomic group?... angryfying.

I show the body's age, you see.... I grew up in the 60s with "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", and I grew up in a part of the SF Bay Area where a lot of my best friends weren't white, nor were many of us middle class or higher.

So I find the younger generation of middleclass white feminism to often be a step backwards from the ideas my mother and the other adults I knew fought for -- even while they're reaping many of the benefits. And that annoys me. But *they* annoy me, not feminism.

I still use feminism to mean the idea that women -- *all women* -- are people, and deserve the same opportunities, basic human respect, basic human dignity, consideration, etc., as every other person does.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 28th, 2009 08:14 pm (UTC) (Link)

At the same time, I think we have something of an obligation, if we want to be feminists and make feminism effective, to recognize where mainstream feminism failed in the past-- mostly in terms of race and sexuality.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: willow Date: June 28th, 2009 05:08 pm (UTC) Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

If there are feminists who dislike what the word feminist is coming to mean to so many - then they need to make themselves visible and loud and take back their word.

Feminists != man hating, humourless, ugly bulldykes with hairy legs to me.

It means = personality/psyche ugly, self involved, majority white women who from the very beginning threw intersectioned women to the curb in their fight to attain the power of the cis, het, white man.

You say womanism and imply a dead end without input from Audre Lourde. bell hooks (and more) and black feminism. And then say 'No! Use this term instead! This is how you should self identify!' (or that's how it's coming across).

I say you can self identify how you want and then come explain to me what you mean by that if I say 'Oh really' and arch an eyebrow. But to invoke the kiearchy as a reason for many women to shift from self-naming, self-identifying and community aligning autonomy, to say:

"But can't you see we're all women together."

Mirror echoes the ones who go "But what about The Sisterhood!" Only when they feel like it/ want to remember that more arms make less work - but only ever on a point of their choosing and once the job is done, they forget again.

Long story short? You're coming across very much like a feminist and all that word means to me.

Own the ugly in your movement and correct it before implying that any other path is not true social justice. Feminism is NOT the only game in town, no matter how many cries of 'Sisterhood!' get made.

ETA: Repost

Edited 2009-06-28 05:20 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 28th, 2009 05:55 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

Hmm, not what I was intending.

The stereotype I was talking about is the one that the acquaintance who specifically irritated me is always including when she makes her anti-feminist comments - which is, to me, unjustifiable commentary, whereas the kind of criticisms you make are fully justified. I mention that in the *same sentence* as citing that stereotype, after all.

rosefox makes a good point in re: girls about "womanism", but that term skeeves me in a bunch of other ways I haven't really unpacked. It could probably be a whole separate post, but it's things like the fact that it still defines the movement by gender, which leaves out a lot of people who are, to me, caused harm by the gender norms of the patriarchy, like transfolk, and queerfolk, and men... while also not addressing issues like racism. And because of my views on the reinforcing effects of oppressions, to me, feminism has to include anti-racism.

I didn't mean to say "this is how you should self identify" - I was aiming more for "automatically bagging on people who identify as feminists with this bullshit stereotype is uncool". You may note I said that it's a problematic term now, and voiced the idea that *I* should switch my personal label for it to something like "anti-sexism".

The reason I talk about "the trouble with a lot of feminists" is that I do see that an awful lot of people who call themselves feminists are letting down women who aren't just like them profoundly, which is, to me, unforgivable, because even if you set aside the *moral* wrongness of that, it doesn't *work* - you aren't going to be able to repair sexism without taking out racism at the same time, and not just because so many women aren't white; these hierarchies of oppression reinforce each other. Racism strengthens sexism (and vice versa; anti-racist misogynists can kiss my fat white female ass).

I think throwing intersectioned women to the kerb is a serious problem within the feminist movement, and one that's harming all aspects of the cause severely.

I'm not invoking the "kiearchy", because I don't know what that is. :( And it's bedtime so I can't look it up right now, but google is unhelpful.

I think, with the overt mentioning and all, my post does recognise/own that the feminist movement contains a lot of ugly, which is probably part of why I'm not really involved in it. I tend to pick and choose my battles, and not just because I have finite spoons to spend.

So, yes. Apologies if this is semi-coherent, I'm really, amazingly tired. (And going to bed NOW. You may yell at me if I reply to you again in the next eight hours.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 28th, 2009 06:06 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

The trouble with a lot of feminists is that they don't recognise intersectionality, and even if they do, nonetheless privilege advocacy on behalf of middle-class able-bodied cisgendered white heterosexual women,

You stated that, but then went on to what appeared to be a 'But that doesn't matter because feminism is bigger than they are' - which rings false to me, because to me feminism is being defined by them. It's not independent or outside of their context and molding.

Re: Kiearchy - I picked the term up from yeloson who used it as the frame that holds classim, racism, heterosexism, cissim, misogyny/misandry etc. Or at least that's how I've been understanding it when I've seen it used since.

Your post may not have been intended to come across like 'But we should excuse all that, because this is SPARTAFEMINISM - and look, I was totally good and mentioned the problems with words'.

Plus, it irks me considerably that you get to say 'I just dislike the term womanist and I think it's going in the wrong direction' but have seemingly said 'But you (general) can't dislike the word feminist and think it's been going in the wrong direction'.

See you when you wake up.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 28th, 2009 06:27 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

(am having trouble settling towards sleepiness)

Plus, it irks me considerably that you get to say 'I just dislike the term womanist and I think it's going in the wrong direction' but have seemingly said 'But you (general) can't dislike the word feminist and think it's been going in the wrong direction'.

Nononono.

I dislike the term womanist, for above-stated blah blah blah and other stuff that could be a whole post except that's not really a place I want to go because if it's working for some people, cool.

You, meaning general you, can dislike the word feminism *on legitimate grounds*, like the whole thing with exclusion of waytoomany people. I get cranky when people snit on feminism because of abovementioned stupid faily stereotype.

You, meaning specific you, have detailed specific and totally legitimate criticisms of feminism, therefore you aren't included in the people who irritate me in this area.

As for "feminism is being defined by them" - see, I disagree with that. THEIR feminism is being defined by them, but there's an awful lot of feminists who aren't using their definition, they're using mine, or they're using their own, and they may never have HEARD of these assholes, or, if they have, they think they're outdated.

I mean, does anyone really listen to Germaine Greer any more? kind of thing.

It's sort of like saying, circa a couple of years ago, that concepts like "democracy" and "values" are being defined by Bush and his supporters, and therefore it's totally justifiable to hate those things and everyone who believes in them, even though lots of people think they're douchebags. That Blagojevich is representative of the Democratic party. I'm being extreme, but you get what I mean?

Back when I WAS involved in feminist groups, we were also heavily involved in working in partnership with the Indigenous women's group, and with the GLBTQI representatives (actually, I *was* one of the student GLBTQI reps), and so on - and nobody would have thought to call what we were working for anything but feminism, despite the fact that being exclusionary was something we tried very very hard to avoid.

So when the Entitlement types do their schtick, that makes me angry, and I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean feminism can't mean what *I* mean by it.

But the fact that I don't mean the douche-version doesn't mean criticising douchey feminism is wrong. My complaint is very much with the kind of anti-feminism that's doing it on stupid stereotypes.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 28th, 2009 06:28 pm (UTC) Re: Sami Appointed Yelling Here (Link)

Go. To. Bed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 03:05 am (UTC) Re: Sami Appointed Yelling Here (Link)

okayIdid and thank you :)

(Reply) (Parent)

From: softestbullet Date: June 28th, 2009 06:32 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

Plus, it irks me considerably that you get to say 'I just dislike the term womanist and I think it's going in the wrong direction' but have seemingly said 'But you (general) can't dislike the word feminist and think it's been going in the wrong direction'.

That's a good summary.

FYI, the word is "kyriarchy":

Kyriarchy - a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for "lord" or "master" (kyrios) and "to rule or dominate" (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination...Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

Patriarchy - Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men to not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).

- Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001

I think I first heard it from yeloson, too. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 28th, 2009 06:33 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

I think I put every vowel in the search combination BUT Y. Because (only sometimes y, often forgotten)

(Reply) (Parent)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 03:05 am (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

OK, that word is very cool.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 28th, 2009 09:12 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

I've also heard people express some discomfort with white women using the 'womanist' label, and I think that's one of the other reasons I stick with 'feminist,' sort of a 'clean up your own mess' attitude.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: hatestrafficlights Date: June 29th, 2009 11:26 am (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

Yes this, also, epically. Any White woman taking on the term "womanist" just seems like she's getting her colonialism on hardcore, and that is never, ever right.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 29th, 2009 11:45 pm (UTC) Re: Straight Hard Disagree (Link)

Yeah. Taking someone else's label because you've fucked up with yours just doesn't feel right.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: softestbullet Date: June 28th, 2009 06:21 pm (UTC) (Link)

Here from willow. Can you explain what it is about womanism that makes you think it's "heading in the wrong direction"?

I'm not sure why you're conflating women who have been hurt by feminism's racism/transphobia/classism/fatphobia/homophobia/anti-sex worker...ness/ageism/ableism/etc with asshole sexist men. And you're being really condescending. Those women haven't just been hurt by "some feminists," they've been hurt by nearly *all* white feminists, nearly *all* cis feminists, etc. Do you think they haven't tried constructive criticism?

I've seen a woman of color go from identifying as a feminist to hating the white women who do, and wow, I really don't blame her, when white feminists ignored her womanhood and anti-sexist work because that wasn't enough to make up for her not being white. White women can't say things like, "Stop dividing the movement!" to WOC when it's our racism that caused those divisions.

So, yes, women who hate feminism because of [insert bigoted stereotypes here], those are bad reasons. But the women who hate it for the awful, oppressive behavior of the privileged women who run it -- it's not the same thing at all.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 28th, 2009 06:31 pm (UTC) (Link)

I didn't SAY they were the same thing. I said quite specifically that legitimate, as in reality-based, criticisms of feminism are entirely justified, necessary, and can only improve feminism as a movement.

Re: womanism: *copies from above*

It could probably be a whole separate post, but it's things like the fact that it still defines the movement by gender, which leaves out a lot of people who are, to me, caused harm by the gender norms of the patriarchy, like transfolk, and queerfolk, and men... while also not addressing issues like racism. And because of my views on the reinforcing effects of oppressions, to me, feminism has to include anti-racism.


Basically, it's retaining the weaknesses of "feminism" as a term, in some ways emphasising them, rather than correcting for it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 29th, 2009 01:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

Considering that womanism played a healthy part in the US' Civil Right's Movement and the Black Power Movement (which included both men and women, and centered around naming and removing intricate and enmeshed isms (though mainly racism). And it played a healthy part in, various civil movements of Social Justice in several African nations - I'm seriously going 'Huh?' when you go 'But womanism implies only women'.

Also, given that womanism came about due to white women ignoring other women - it's further confusing to have you going 'I dislike it cause it's -wrong-' but then saying that to explain why would take too long.

I think perhaps you are seriously not aware of the arguments that have been used 'against' - and have fallen into their wording, which is rising hackles. (or at least that's the excuse I have given you)

Wording you have hit:

* Womanism is wrong / is doing it wrong
--- Argument implication: Stop dividing the movement with your silly WOC thing, which can't be a strong power because it doesn't include white women and so will fall down for lack of movement.

* You say womanism doesn't include men
--- Arugument implication: I am ignoring the fact that historically WoC have refused to throw their men to the curb and have been told they don't -understand- the true concept of feminism and femipower. Aka MoC don't count. And White Men can't be womanist they way the can be feminist

* The Patriarchy
--- Argument implication: Womanism is divisive and reduces feminism's power to engage the Patriarchy

* Womanism doesn't include anti-racism, which you say is important to you, but yet you're holding onto feminism.
--- [First up, every time you say this it makes me want to slap you - and I'm not even all learned about the Mothers of Womanism and the Civil Rights/Social Justice Movement in the US and Abroad.]

--- Argument implication: Womanism, a movement which began because of racism, doesn't include anti-racism. But feminism needs more people bringing the inclusiveness and helping feminism be better, not haring off to their own corner to do their own little unimportant thing. They should be working for change -in- feminism, no matter that an entire movement started because feminists weren't listening.

And I'm getting tired of this now. My point being, that sure you said there were problems and pointed them out re: feminism. But then you went on to seemingly talk through the other side of your mouth with arguments that look a hell of a lot like the ones used traditionally to put down womanism and more general social justice movements.

[Posting this here seemed more valid than posting in your other entry]

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 01:53 pm (UTC) (Link)

... okay, so, here, I think I've just found where there's some major dissonance happening.

I had never, and I mean honest to god never, encountered the term "womanism" before about two months ago.

And until I made this post, I'd only seen it used by North American white women. *Ever*. Including in extended essays in which they Defined Themselves As Womanists as opposed to feminists, and talked about What Womanism Means In General.

So, until I made this post, I had no idea, or reason I can think of to have concluded, that it wasn't a new thing. And as a concept, I had (and have, but I'm reprocessing now) no link in mind between womanism and anything to do with (anti-)racism.

And it wasn't until this comment of yours that I picked up on that - apparently I haven't been thinking clearly in the last couple of days.

So, basically I'll shut up about womanism entirely until further notice while I look shit up. Because I'm now thinking that's where the discussion skewed away from what I was intending, which was, purely, a critique of (usually white) women who attack feminists *on the grounds of the bullshit stereotype I mentioned*. The only reason I brought up the other stuff was to try and make it clear that I *didn't* mean to include people who criticise feminism on actual legitimate grounds.

And apparently tripped over a disturbing chunk of massive freaking ignorance.

Excuse me while I go process for a few minutes about how this doesn't represent a severe personal failing that means I am a TERRIBLE FAILURE OF A PERSON AND SHOULD JUST DIE, because, wow, do I hate this feeling. Then I'll do some research.

In the meantime, I apologise for having said persistently stupid and hurtful things from sheer and profound ignorance. I am so so sorry.

And thank you for the tremendous compliment you paid me by continuing to discuss it this long. I truly appreciate that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 29th, 2009 02:10 pm (UTC) (Link)

This is why links are important. Because apparently there are white women out there, co-opting/appropriating the term Womanism for themselves and presenting themselves as experts in the movement, but not mentioning its extensive history.

Also, because other people are GOING to mention it now you've admitted how clueless you were.

LMWTFU: Womanism

PPS: Are you sure the women you read were white?

Edited 2009-06-29 02:16 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 02:24 pm (UTC) (Link)

Apparently.

Or even making vague allusions thereto. I'm pretty good at picking up on this stuff, as a rule, since history is, you know, WHAT I DO, and I had no idea. None.

I'm trying very hard not to hate myself for that, because, really, I don't think I had clues until I made this post, even.

And yet, I feel like Not Knowing something, being less than perfect at recognising historical relevance, means I've failed as a human being.

I can't guarantee every woman I've read who mentioned womanism was white, but the ones I can recall offhand were, I think.

I'll read the wikipedia article, but probably a bit later. I think I need to pull out of this discussion for a while and go play guitar or something.

(I wouldn't raise My Issues in this sort of context with someone I didn't correspond with regularly, but you're Real People, not Random Internet People, if you get what I mean.) Being caught displaying serious ignorance is something that makes me feel deeply ashamed and humiliated. It's something I'm working on with my psych, but I haven't actually defeated it, and I don't want to crash and burn emotionally because of this conversation - which isn't to say I don't think these are important subjects, and isn't to say I am wanting to get a free pass on fucking up because I feel bad, it's just to say that I need to pull away from this temporarily or else it's going to be very damaging to me, and I've been doing really very well for the last few days and I'd like to keep that up.

Please don't think too much less of me because of all this. I wouldn't have done it on purpose, I swear.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 29th, 2009 02:26 pm (UTC) (Link)

Go chill the brain. There's been a whole set of stuff in a row recently, offline and on.

PS: Also, I totally got the spelling of kyriarchy wrong, so while it doesn't hit my 'you're a bad person' mental tapes the way this hits yours - I could totally see myself getting into an argument with someone over the word, which they'd insist didn't exist and which I was sure was (but might forgot to mention I wasn't sure of the spelling).

Edited 2009-06-29 02:29 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 03:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

*nods*

The thing for me, I think, is that for most of my life, I got a strong message, frequently reinforced, that my only virtue was my intelligence, that I was only valued because I knew stuff.

Now, I'm fully capable of expressing ignorance in an area where I feel like I'm allowed to be ignorant, and acknowledging gaps in my knowledge in my own fields of reasonable expertise. But finding out that there was this massive chunk of necessary information I didn't even know EXISTED, let alone having a reasonable competence with it...

On some level it feels like I just blew my justification for existence.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: sqbr Date: June 29th, 2009 02:12 pm (UTC) (Link)

I had never, and I mean honest to god never, encountered the term "womanism" before about two months ago. And until I made this post, I'd only seen it used by North American white women

Ohhhhh. Oh wow. While I have only EVER encountered the term used by WOC, and specifically to highlight that they are interested in intersectionality with race.

Man, I've fallen off into a deep abyss of ignorance I didn't know I had about this sort of thing myself, and it sucks. *sympathy* But that doesn't make you a failure of a person, it just means you don't know as much as you'd like, and none of us do.

Well: as an antidote I strongly recommend Womanist Musings. She's awesome. And talks about race AND disability AND sexuality AND Xena.

I'm not sure how much sense the comments I made over on the other post make now!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: willow Date: June 29th, 2009 02:15 pm (UTC) (Link)

They make sense assuming she knew the term. And I think they'll be very helpful now, in showing why she was coming off in a way that was angering several WoC.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 02:25 pm (UTC) (Link)

Indeed.

I did have this ongoing feeling of, okay, someone here is missing something, and I have a feeling it's me, but I don't know WHAT I'm missing that is at least resolved now.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: skywardprodigal Date: June 28th, 2009 07:12 pm (UTC) (Link)

Far be it from me not to disagree with Alice Walker from time-to-time, but if you have a problem with feminist you might want to take it up with her who, iirc, coined the term in response to the crap entrenched in the feminism of white women who appointed themselves the spokeswomen for all women and then pretended like women they'd been othering before, during, and after they discovered feminism didn't exist.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 03:04 am (UTC) (Link)

Do you mean if I have a problem with womanist?

(Reply) (Parent)

From: nicki Date: June 29th, 2009 02:30 am (UTC) (Link)

Sami, here's what I hear you saying: "There are people in the femminist movement who are jerks, but there are people in the feminist movement who are not jerks and who are actively working against jerkiness as well. Saying that everyone involved in feminism is a jerk and dismissing all those people who are not jerks and who are actively working against jerkiness hurts me and makes me angry because it feels like you are calling me (person involved in feminism and yet caring about the other issues as well) a jerk undeservedly. I would like it to stop because not only does it hurt me, it alienates other non-jerky women who identify as feminist who might be working on those exact same non-jerky issues as the person dismissing feminism. Yes, criticize where criticism is warranted, please, but don't be dismissive of everyone because if we are working on the same (anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-prejudice) issues, it is generally more effective to work together when we can."

Is that a correct summation?

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 03:03 am (UTC) (Link)

Pretty much, yes. Thank you.

Plus, in terms of what *originally* set me off on this, "and please don't use the ugly stereotypes sexist men have set up to counteract legitimate anti-sexism, pls".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: nicki Date: June 29th, 2009 03:24 am (UTC) (Link)

I have to agree with you, I also get irritated and dismissiveness of possible allies doesn't seem very productive to me.

Edited 2009-06-29 09:02 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 10:02 am (UTC) (Link)

See, the people I'm thinking of, they're not even dismissing possible allies - they seem to be dismissing the idea that a movement of co-operation and advocacy against the kyriarchy is necessary, and attacking people who critique sexism and misogyny as humourless and oversensitive, etc.

So they're not so much being unproductive as being actively damaging.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: nicki Date: June 29th, 2009 08:01 pm (UTC) (Link)

I've heard a lot of that attitude from American Conservative women. It's... Just... Sigh.

(Reply) (Parent)