CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

Um, the title of this post is meant to be flip, by the way.  Obviously we CAN'T all get along (and I am not necessarily saying we should).  I don't have time to put up a bunch of links at the moment, but can I just observe that the feminist blog community has been awfully contentious lately?  The various wars going on throughout the blogosphere include:

(1) Extended burqagate arguing at Alas (the "Of Bikinis and Burqas" post) and Punkass Blog.

(2) Vociferous critiques (and defenses) of Ampersand for selling the Amptoons site (except for Alas, A Blog) to a company that posts reviews of porn and links to porn, without fully notifying his feminist readership and allowing for comment. Heart at Women's Space/The Margins broke this story, I believe.  A number of other people have commented like Violet Socks at The Reclusive Leftist, Hugo Schwyzer, and Chris at Creek Running North.

(3) Fallout from Playboy's endorsement of Pandagon as a top blog, including suggestions that Amanda's flip response was insufficient or constituted pandering, or that Playboy's endorsement somehow establishes that Amanda's views are in alignment with Playboy's. 

(4) Criticism of Jill's fun feminist post.  Molly (of Molly Saves the Day) suggests that Jill should abandon her lipstick loving, bikini waxing ways.  Jill and others at Feministe respond.   Jessica at Feministing weighs in.  Hugo addresses Molly's criticisms as well in a post that references yours truly.  Bitch has an entirely different critique of these kinds of posts which she expressed in the comments section at Hugo's place. (I am not going  paraphrase it because I think I'll get it wrong if I do, especially because I'm in a hurry.)

Since I am one of the lipstick feminists, I have lots to say in response to number 4 and will certainly follow up when I have the time. 

Comments

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Yeah I read Bitch's comment, and Arwen has a gret comment along those same lines that I want to think about. I can't wait to see what you think too.

[Antigone]

I try and stay out of these frays: while they are pretty important, they tend to be kind of...ruthless. These are important issues: where is the line where feminists are multiculturists, even to the point of supporting misgynistic cultures? What is the feminist belief about pornography, and what is empowering women to support their sexuality and what is objectifying women? As we live in a patriarchal society, to what point can a feminist embrace the trappings of that society?

I rarely, if ever wade into these frays, or even comment on them, because I don't know. And I don't think a lot of people know either, which is why these are always so strong: people are a little defensive and shaky about their position, and of course there is always mainstream society to contend with.

I think everyone's feeling tense and restless about something: even the right side of the blogsphere is doing a bunch of in-fighting.

[mythago]

Speaking only for myself, I think it's a little disingenous to bring up a contentious topic and then get all hurt when people treat it as something for serious discussion instead of shutting up, er, "getting along".

[Bitch]

This is why I've so much enjoyed the Janet Halley book, Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism. She's argued that we need to "take a break from feminism" in order to work on other social justice projects. She doesn't mean leave forever, just work on other project and use different lenses through which to see problem and solve problems.

She's very much concerned with feminist legal theory and she, I can't even believe the cahones that woman has sometimes, is actually trying to carve out a solid critique of MacKinnon (the later). She argues that MacKinnon's later work left us no escape hatch: there was only asolute subordination of women. But this causes all kind of problems for if we accept that, then how does society change? How can we actually change it if we are, as MacKinnon says, completely unable to think outside patriarchy?

I don't know, though, I think BlogLandia is just as contentious as ever. I happen to prefer the kind of world Halley wants: one were discussions of racis, sexism, etc. were seem banalized so that any such discussion can proceed, not at the level of perceived rhetorical insult, but in terms of actually engaging one another's arguments or maybe simply understanding the world the other is coming from. Understanding doesn't entail agreement, though. It just makes for building a stronger political community. And that's what we should all want, eh?

[Sydney]

Well, as someone who spends a fair amount of time swimming, and thus in a bathingsuit, and around other people in bathing suits, I can say that while I respect a woman's choice not to shave "down there" I really REALLY appreciate it when she chooses to do so. For asthetic purposes, not because I think that women *should* shave.

Do you know what I appreciate more? When a really hot man from the swim team decides to stretch(read: flex his incredibly sexy back and arms) on the pool deck exactly 2 feet away from me. With his suit riding just a hair too low. I don't think I would hear him complaining about being objectified by the matriarchy.

[The Happy Feminist]

Speaking only for myself, I think it's a little disingenous to bring up a contentious topic and then get all hurt when people treat it as something for serious discussion instead of shutting up, er, "getting along".

Did someone do this? (I thought I made it clear that my reference to "getting along" was completely flippant. And I specifcally noted that I am not at all sure that we SHOULD be trying to get along.)

[Antigone]

One thing I did object to: I don't think it's "Fun" to wear makeup, or to do my hair. I hate frilly, lacy pink thinks and abhor heels. To call those things "fun" is really annoying to me.

[The Happy Feminist]

Antigone, you anticipate me! "Fun" isn't quite the term I would use either, although I adopted it because someone used it in a derogatory way and I thought it was funny. I am more of a corporate feminist (if there is such a thing) I guess than a "fun" feminist. More to come if I can manage to get a good night's sleep tonight!

[The Grouch]

I can't.

Seriously, I can't, and I don't particularly want to. I don't want to get along with people who would seize on the Playboy thing to "prove" that Amanda's a bad feminist (and yes, people have done this. Some of the radfems like delphyne and Sam have said that Playboy wouldn't have picked Amanda if she wasn't tacitly supporting a patriarchal agenda--while conveniently forgetting that Pam blogs there too, I might add.)

I also don't particularly want to get along with those who think posting long quotes about imperialism and its gendered aspects is equivalent to an argument about how a particular picture is pro-colonialist or not. Because, really, who the fuck is some Western academic to tell me that I'm not educated enough about imperialism? And to assume that, if I read a picture differently from them, I must never have thought about certain issues or must be white or both? It smacks of the same condescension they castigate those demonic Mainstream Liberal Colonialist White Feminists (who I have serious problems with, mind you, but simply calling someone white/mainstream/liberal/colonialist isn't an argument)for displaying.

Phew. I've been seriously pissed off by all of this. I wouldn't suggest a break from feminism, but maybe a break from the blogosphere wouldn't be amiss.

[The Grouch]

who the fuck is some Western academic to tell me that I'm not educated enough about imperialism?

This makes it sound like I think academics have nothing useful to tell us about imperialism, and I don't think that. What I mean is that Brownfemipower, BitchLab, chabert and others (I don't mean to start a flamewar here by naming names, but at the same time I think it's stupid and cowardly to say "some people")have been responding to arguments defending Amanda's picture by quoting at length from works on colonialism and postcolonialism--because of course those who disagree with the above commenters have never read those works before and are completely uneducated about imperialism!

I also realize that this is off-topic. I'm posting it to clarify my comment about academics, but I won't respond to any comments about this comment in this thread if HF doesn't want me to.

[The Happy Feminist]

Again, just want to clarify, that I wasn't seriously asking everyone to get along.

One thing I have always said is that feminists argue from the same basic premises (about the importance of freedom and equality for women) but may reach wildly divergent conclusions, have different areas of concern, or have other concerns besides feminism that effect one's feminist viewpoint.

I don't think I realized quite how deep the divisions are in the feminist blogosphere until recently though.

[will]

I really enjoy the contentious debates when they stay centered on the issues.

However, I do not think that it advances the discussion when the posts center on who is a real feminist instead of what actions do more to promote the values of feminism.

Instead of attacking the issue, it becomes "you hate women" or "you are not much of a feminist" or "you are a self-loathing patriarchy-worshiper," or subtle variations of that them.

[will]

Mythago and HappyF both do an excellent job of staying on attacking the issue, much more than the person. I tend to look for their posts on topics because I know that they typically say something intelligent about the issue (even though I might disagree with them.)

I believe that the way that they discuss issues (and they often disagree) is a good example of productive disagreement.

[evil_fizz]

Frankly, I am just sick and tired of radfem versus "sex-positive" debates. They're downright ridiculous, circuitous, and annoying as hell because they are the same damn debate over and over again. How many refusals to understand your opponent's premises can you really go through?

On the topic of Pandagon and Playboy: My work has been cited approvingly by the President's Council on Bioethics. Does anyone actually think that means that I'm supporting Leon Kass and his minions?

[The Happy Feminist]

Mythago and HappyF both do an excellent job of staying on attacking the issue, much more than the person. I tend to look for their posts on topics because I know that they typically say something intelligent about the issue (even though I might disagree with them.)

You might disagree with us? I always suspected you were a patriarchy-worshiper who hates women.

[will]

"You might disagree with us? I always suspected you were a patriarchy-worshiper who hates women."

At least I don't wear heels, wax my brows, or have patently obvious breasts!!

[Sandy]

I've enjoyed the debate, though I'm sorry for all of the hurt feelings. It's like Twisty's blow job brouhaha, though - why do so many people take posts like that so *seriously*? I can see how Jill & Molly got into it, because they each thought of the other as a complete ally, but I'm astounded at the level of anger by many others. Who knew that body hair was such a "touchy" (sorry ;-) ) subject?

My latest reaction is sheer astonishment at how many younger women in NY (the whole east coast) do the Brazilian wax thing. At 43, I have to say I'm happy that I live in the hairier midwest. Where I don't even shave my legs from October to May. Well, except maybe for a holiday party.

[L.]

What is it, with the young generation`s embrace of the Brazilian, or, as someone more eloquent than I put it, "The Kojack down low, Jack?" Wow, I sound like an old fudd-duddy, don`t I?

My daughter and I were showering at the Y and I was trying hard NOT to watch a young razor-weilding woman right next to us give herself a "landing strip."

The whole Playboy controversy reminds me of college, 20 years ago, when Playboy (or one of those magazines -- details fuzzy) gave my school, Smith, a high "party school" rating, and rival Mt. Holyoke a much lower rating. Some women at Mt. Holyoke organized rallies protesting their school`s inclusion in the college party list.... whereas the women I knew at my school were just glad we got a good rating, if we cared at all -- none of us seemed to care what a sexist magazine said about our school, to the point of organizing a rally about it.

[Bitch]

Posted by: Sandy | October 13, 2006 at 11:20 AM --

Sandy --

Me too! I remember the days of Alex Comfort and some rather hirsute drawings in his book, "how to make love to each other.' Now I have an 18 y.o. son who shaves his body hair b/c that is what you do in FL. Excuse me, I mean *I* shave him so his back can be completely hair free, too. *rolls eyes* I blame capitalist patriarhcy, is what i blame!

The Grouch --

Sorry to ruin your lunch, but I'm not an academic. I'm a 'failed' one. Aside from which, most of my knowledge of feminist theory was cultivated completely outside the academia. I grew up working class, spent my 18th year living in a car in a destitute part of the US during a horrible recession. Going to grad school on an $9k salary in 1996 was a pay raise compared to the $5/hr jobs I'd had before that. I will be lucky if I make $15k this year as a freelancer in an industry where you are considered old if you're over 30, and one dominated by men. Sorry to embarass folks by that kind of disucssion, but I am uncouth like that.

I apologize profusely for having the audacity to use a library to learn things on my own!

[The Happy Feminist]

What a blast from the past! I can't say I would disagree with rating Mount Holyoke lower than Smith as a party school, but I am quite amazed to learn that Playboy was thinking of either school in those terms. I guess the fantasy of all-female campuses was too much for them.

I seem to recall in my era ('89-'93), Playboy did some sort of spread on "Women of the Women's Colleges." They came to Northampton to recruit people from Smith and Mount Holyoke. There was probably a protest but I don't remember because I was too busy trying to pass chem. I wasn't aware of anyone from Mount Holyoke auditioning, but one of those hussies from Smith probably did!

[light]

The government should be persuaded to pay for all healthcare

[channel]

The change of our climate is, is not natural

[lamp]

Vulgar language during primetime TV is, is not okay