« MY NAME IS HAPPY AND I AM A FUN FEMINIST | Main | SOME STRAY POINTS ON FEMININE FEMINISTS »

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 | Lab

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 comments to this entry are closed.