More on feminist schisms only Tiger, Curvature and I probably care about.
DAMN, GIRL. rock the fuck on, that was incredible.Well, if we’re refusing to be nice to each other, that’s just shitty. Because I make a point of being nice to folks that I respect. And, since you ask, here is what I’m talking about, when I talk about disagreements with radical feminism:
I’m talking about Audre Lorde’s letter to Mary Daly, thanking her for her contributions to feminism, and then asking her why African and African diaspora women were so underrepresented or misrepresented in her latest book.
I’m talking about Dworkin and MacKinnon receiving support from Phyllis Schlafly and Meese for anti-porn legislation, which they pursued when the queer community had made it CLEAR that they would be the first folks to be affected by any anti-porn legislation, and plenty of folks already knew that, yes, in fact ANY censorship agenda would affect marginalized groups first and disproportionately, and also, SCHLAFLY? That’s just… ew.
I’m talking about Twisty’s “no woman has ever enjoyed a blowjob” statement.
I’m talking about Sheila Jeffreys, and other advocates of “political lesbianism,” arguing that all feminists SHOULD identify as lesbian, but that this did not mean having and enjoying sex with women, but rather never having sex with men. This not only devalued lesbian desire (I always thought the point of being pro-lesbian was saying that desire for other women was awesome and we should support women who experienced it! Nope, the point is THE ABSENCE OF MEN, which still defines female sexuality around men and heterosexuality, even through their absence, in a totally insulting way) but frankly ENCOURAGED women not to have healthy, fulfilling sexual relationships if they felt desire for men. (It also probably led to some really fucking frustrating relationships for lesbian women in relationships with “political lesbian” straight women.) It encouraged women to repress and deny or lie to themselves about their sexuality. Which, if I’m not mistaken, The Patriarchy had already done a pretty good job of encouraging us to do.
I’m talking about Lisa Vogel and Barbara Price of MichFest saying that “the Michigan Festival has always been an event for women,” then saying in the same sentence that they only meant “womyn-born womyn.” I’m talking about feminists choosing to exclude their trans sisters from female gatherings, in spite of the fact that those women also experience misogyny, and are at greater risk of being violently attacked than cis women in many cases.
I’m talking about Andrea Dworkin, in the chapter of “Intercourse” entitled “Occupation/Collaboration” (which, yes: I did read Andrea Dworkin, when I identified as a radical feminist; she was the first feminist I ever read; I was more into Mary Daly, though) and the fact that, although she’s a brilliant stylist, and often a brilliant theorist as well, her argument there is slippery and ambiguous in truly worrisome ways. “In our current society, due to the way sex and gender are constructed, penetrating a woman is viewed as an act of conquest and invasion” is very different from “men inherently view penetrating a woman as an act of conquest and invasion,” and that in turn is very different from “being penetrated is an act of being conquered and invaded,” and while I can’t argue with the first reading, you’ve also had people arguing for the second and third readings ever since the book was published, and those second and third readings? When you adopt them as personal principles? Lead to some fucked-up, dysfunctional, repressive feelings about men and sex. Luckily, they’re also completely wrong.
I’m talking about bell hooks, in “Feminism: From Margin to Center,” and numerous other feminists of color who were involved in second-wave and radical feminism, talking about how women of color were encouraged - no, COMMANDED - to identify as “women first,” to embrace “sisterhood” with women who were directly involved in their oppression, and to side with those women over the men in their communities.
I’m talking, to a lesser extent, about the endless debates over whether shaving your legs is appropriately feminist, whether high heels are appropriately feminist, whether motherhood is appropriately feminist, whether marriage is appropriately feminist, which seem to completely miss the point that you can be the leg-shavingest, high-heels-wearingest, marriedest mother in the world and STILL be the target of misogynist violence or discrimination, because YOU’RE A WOMAN, and that telling other women how to “resist the patriarchy” with their personal bodies is both invasive and non-productive and, yes, has a distinctive tinge of slut-shaming and one-upsmanship to it.
And, since you cannot separate “feminism,” as some pure disembodied concept, from the actions of feminists - because it is a theory of ACTION, not some untouchable Platonic ideal - I’m talking about me, a former radical feminist, who refused to hear critique because I thought everyone who challenged me was trying to tear down feminism because they were colluders or misogynists, and how I had to have several dedicated feminist women and men call me out and explain to me, over and over, that my theory and my actions were based on privilege, offensive, condescending, and counterproductive. And how fucking long it took me before I learned to listen to people instead of heaving a deep sigh and thinking about how hard it was to be the only person in the world besides Dworkin and Daly and, I don’t know, maybe Gloria Steinem (but she was kind of mainstream and not radical enough, I thought) who really Knew What Feminism Was About.
Right now, this conversation is reminding me of conversations about Catholicism I had with my mom. I’d say, “I don’t feel comfortable identifying as Catholic, due to its history of misogyny, torturing people, etc.” She’d say, “oh, but honey, those weren’t REAL CATHOLICS.” I’d say, “but they were! Some of them were Popes!” This stuff is in the history, and it’s in the theory, and refusing to deal with that, or acting as if the only radfems to ever engage in problematic discourse are “weirdos” who just don’t know feminism (is it time to revoke their Feminism Membership Cards, then?) is irresponsible.
I mean. Betty Friedan talked about the Lavender Fucking Menace. Her theory pertained mostly, if not exclusively, to privileged, middle-class, white women. Does acknowledging that - or acknowledging the mistakes and problematic elements in any other feminist’s work - and working to correct the mistakes of her theory as we form our own, make us less feminist, or less radical? I’d argue it makes us MORE radical.
Feminism, as a commitment to ending oppression and identity-based privilege, is inherently tied to all other anti-oppression movements, and it requires us to constantly question ourselves, to examine and resist our own privilege, to admit that we may have been wrong, and to GET BETTER. It requires us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I believe in feminism enough to believe that owning up to the mistakes of our ancestors makes us stronger. Because then we won’t repeat them.
Click through Sady’s link at the top to read the whole conversation … but I just wanted to give this right here a a massive round of applause. Standing ovation, in fact.
THIS. THIS THIS THIS. (Also, I think lots of people care about this)
I’m going to go ahead and cosign this one. If this is the bandwagon, I’m jumping in.
