Feminism is not a dirty word, but it is exclusionary.

[lightningandsnow]

If we were to ask whether or not men and women are equal, the answer would be an unequivocal no. As much as feminism has made great strides towards ending inequality, there are still great gaps between the genders, which manifest themselves economically, socially and through violence. Because certain protections have been enshrined in law, there are those that believe that feminist organizing has reached the zenith of it achievement, however; what can be granted by law, can be taken by law.

The issue with feminism is that by locating gender as the singular site of oppression in the lives of women, it ignores the ways in which class, sexuality, disability and race also form the basis of marginalization. In a piece written for the Sidney Herald, Georgina Ibister chose to state her defence of feminism:

"I'm not going to deny that the word feminism hasn't become problematic. But the reasons for this are predominantly superficial. The denial of feminist identification seems to be based not in resistance to feminism's goals of gender equality, but in the replication of outdated and exaggerated feminist stereotypes.

Feminism today means working towards changing cultures of entrenched misogyny within universities and workplaces, pushing for maternity leave — which many women still cannot access — child-care availability and equal pay. Feminism is a tool that opens up avenues for gender liberation that allow us to move towards a fairer and more equal society.

Equality in all realms of our lives is not just something that appears on the supermarket shelves as a commodity to buy. As a community we have a responsibility to strive for equal rights as well as ensure the continuation of the rights we have gained. Maintaining and building upon gender equality must be an ongoing process.

Feminist concerns are at the heart of our everyday lives, in our relationships with partners, family, friends and colleagues. If we all managed to take into consideration the gender dynamics and possible inequalities present in our own lives and change them for the better, we would contribute to changing attitudes within society. Feminism offers all of us the opportunity to strive and hope for gender equality in all places, This is its core ideal, thus we must reclaim feminism."

I suppose if you are white, able bodied, cisgender and straight, this little treatise would be inspiring, however; if even one of the above marginalizations marks your body as “other”, clearly Ibister’s vision of female solidarity is meant specifically to exclude your concerns.

Feminism is not irrelevant because women have achieved equal rights, it is irrelevant because it routinely fails to consider and affirm that a monolithic woman does not exist. This is precisely the critique that WOC have routinely voiced regarding feminist organizing and feminist theory. Gender cannot be the only site of oppression because we all experience it differently. A White suburban mom and a disabled woman living alone are going to have very different issues. It is so readily evident and yet White able bodied, straight heterosexual women, continue to frame feminist organizing in a matter that best suits their needs and their desires. Feminism isn’t just about equality for these women; it is about gaining the ability to oppress in the same manner that White men have historically oppressed.

More at: http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/12/feminism-is-not-dirty-word-but-it-is.html

Unlike the author, I do identify as a feminist despite the issues within the movement. But it's a good read. In the thread about why people don't post here anymore, I did mention the lack of intersectionality as a concern. I do wish we had a broad anti-oppression group on DU, but I think people really need to look outside themselves for that to happen.

[redqueen]

1. "it is about gaining the ability to oppress in the same manner that White men ..."

:wtf:

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I also bristle at the notion that any equal rights group must necessarily concern itself with all oppressed people everywhere. I am used to hearing that type of argument in regard to women's issues, minority issues, etc. and I don't agree with it in any of its manifestations.

[ThomCat]

3. I'll have to disagree with you.

(personal rant: I spent two hours slowly typing a post because of arthritis, and my browser crashed. @#$%&! So this is a very short, hopefully more concise rewrite)


I have always thought that one of the most important historical developments in feminism, and one that made it possible for feminism to really succeed, was expanding beyond the idea that feminism is a self-contained philosophy. It isn't some kind of universal absolute self-contained perspective that all women have in common that can be isolated from every other part of a woman's life. You can't understand feminism without understanding all forms of oppression because you can't understand women without understanding all the forms of oppression that women face and endure as women because they are women. (and that men face because of gender and sex and sexuality too, if you dig deep enough into feminism)

Only straight, white, middle class women have the privilege of seeing sexism and gender issues as a stand-alone set of issues that feminism can discuss and deal with. That is because in all other ways, their lives can be considered normative and taken for granted.

But if you are a lesbian or bisexual or transgendered woman then this is most definitely an inherent and inseparable part of being a woman and has to be discussed and included in your feminism. So feminism has to expand to encompass this. Feminism has to understand homophobia and heterosexism to understand the ways patriarchy affects these women.

If you are Black, or Orthodox Jewish, or a Guatemalan immigrant, or whatever your ethnic, racial, or cultural background that is also for you an inseparable part of how you experience and understand being a woman, or being a man. Race and culture isn't something you can leave at the door. If feminism is going to be available to all women, it has to encompass and include discussions of race and ethnicity and culture. Feminism has to understand the different forms and manifestations of racism, and cultural elitism, in order to understand the power dynamics so many men will use against these women.

Poverty definitely worms itself into all aspects of your life when you are poor. Poor women can't leave poverty at the door when discussing their lives as women. Feminism has to understand poverty and wealth too, economics and the power distributions and dynamics involved in economics so that we can understand the methods and systems by which sexism has become a set of tools to keep women poor.

That's why feminism has evolved to be a perspective from which we can incorporate other perspectives. It is a growing framework for mapping and understanding forces and pressures and influences. It can't be one perspective that stays "HERE" and says "this is what we discuss is this is what we care about, and that is as far as we go."

There has been a more or less consistent critique of feminism since nearly the beginning, arguing that feminism was dominated by straight white middle class women and only their concerns. Feminism as a movement has tried hard to take that as constructive criticism while expanding outward so that the criticism isn't and can't be true.

What might be true is that white middle class feminists still tend to be the most outspoken, but even that isn't even nearly as true as it used to be. Here I am, a gay, disabled white man speaking up for feminism because feminism has reached out to me successfully.

People may assume the face of feminism is still middle class white women, but more and more, that's just a mistaken assumption, and the fact that they are making this mistake is a good thing. That's a sign that feminism is succeeding in reaching out and bringing in more people, and more perspectives. People just haven't caught up with the changes yet.

[lightningandsnow]

4. You are awesome.

:hug:

[bliss_eternal]

5. i wish i could recommend this post....

:applause:

most excellent!

[redqueen]

6. I understand the point you're making.

However usually this sort of argument is made in an effort to convey the opinion that we don't need affirmative action anymore. Or that women have achieved enough equality already, and therefore the feminist movement should be abandoned and be made about men's rights just as much as women's.

Does racial equality need to encompass issues of sexuality and poverty? Does poverty need to encompass issues of sexuality and race?

Addressing "feminism" as a monolithic entity that must encompass and address all these other issues seems to me to be a red herring. I never thought of feminism as something that was solely the domain of straight, middle-class white women. I never thought of it as something that had a 'face'. IMO the fact that these other issues are worthy of consideration is a priori.

Thank you for making the effort to discuss this with me. I appreciate it very much.

Saying that the word "feminism" is exclusionary, while technically correct, seems to be a rather meaningless observation. Should we stop using it?

[ThomCat]

7. Well, that is true, many arguements we get from the outside tend to be

red herrings. :shrug:

And you are also very correct that all these other issues are a priori worthy of consideration.

Though I don't see how anyone could make the argument from any of this for dismantling affirmative action that we couldn't easily counter. And the idea that women already have equality is so ludicrous that it's easily dismissed as fantasy.

The critique that feminism is monolithic does seem to keep recurring, especially outside of the US and among non-white women who see feminism as still a bastion of white women.

Feminists haven't been possessive about their brand, insisting that women around the world can't have and reshape feminism. Feminist have not been denying feminism to anyone, or denying anyone the ability to bring their own perspectives into feminism. But IMO the perspective is still there that "it's yours, therefore it can't also be mine." So the perspective that Feminism is monolithic will endure. :(

As for the idea that Feminism is exclusionary, no, I don't think it is even technically correct. Too many feminists have worked too hard to apply feminist research to the benefit of women in too many communities across too many boundaries for anyone to seriously believe in this exclusiveness. I think this idea that feminism is exclusive is a way of attacking feminism. It's a way of either implying or outright insisting that feminism is isolated and out of date, and therefore useless, when we know that none of these things is true.

Rule number one when we are being attacked, I won't concede that the attack is correct and that therefore we should just pack up and go home.

[seabeyond]

9. i know what you mean though.

i was talking to a long time friend. about relationships. she has had a tough life. messed up family and it has stayed with her a lifetime. she is 54 taking a college course on family and relationships. she says maybe she can learn what a family is.

i was telling her about relationship with husband and i, about how one isnt dominate over another, or wanting the others power. we are both empowered in our own right

just the seriousness of her face and eye to eye contact when she told me.... that isnt how it is in the black community.

this was just a couple months ago.

yes, we want it to be inclusive. i understand why some feel it isnt.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Feminism contains the greatest truths I know

Hands down, with no exaggeration. It is NOT exclusionary and hasn't been for some time. But within it's philosophies contain the concepts of not only gender equality, but equal respect for what are now gendered roles. If a man chooses to stay home and be a 'househusband' it's my hope that someday, no one blinks an eye. If a woman wants to sew dresses for a living, good for her. If a gay couple want to adopt a child or use a surrogate mother or artificial insemination, it should be the norm, not the exception. If a woman chooses to be child free, she should bear no burden of guilt. These are are all very simple examples ( I could, for instance build a case about war directly caused by patriarchy as well as things like racism, destructive government and economic practices but I won't here) and as roles and choices for women expand, roles and choices for human beings do as well. Feminism exist because of a horror filled destructive imbalance. The day that imbalance is corrected is the day we can retire the word feminism. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, or even the lifetime of my grandchildren children. But I hope little by little, we get there.


(Off topic and BTW I saw a great tee shirt today; "Legalize Gay" it said. I gave the dude a big smile and a thumbs up which he returned)

[iverglas]

10. the funny thing is

"Sex-positive feminism" is about the most insular of all the brands.

No economic analysis, no political analysis, no efforts at making the kinds of change that would affect any other aspect of women's lives or anyone else's lives. Just sex, sex, sex. With a little gender thrown in. ;)

[ismnotwasm]

2. Second wave feminism made it's mistakes

White, middle class straight women came up with, among other things, something called "standpoint theory" the idea that all women share same experience simply by being female. I still hold that attitude is one of the biggest mistakes feminism has made. While we all share the experience of being female, there are many differences in that experiences, as well as reaction to them. I don't know what it's like to be a black women, a Gay women, a transgendered women. I do have a good idea what going through life as female entails, and that's where the commonality IS. This mistake has been addressed over and over again by feminist theorists, and by active and activist feminists, and the ones who in my mind did much to bring that mistake to a screeching halt were Black feminist movement. Those are some good reads, powerful stuff.

I subscribe to feminist philosophy journals, and I do take certain exception to the article's conclusion on feminism. It can only be considered exclusionary if one doesn't know enough about it;

Here are some of the topics, (groups of essays written by different feminists)

Writing against Heterosexism
The reproduction of Whiteness; Race and the Regulation of the Gendered Body
Just War
Democratic Theory
A tribute issue to Iris Marion Young (She did a lot of important work on Social Justice theory )
Reciprocity and the virtue of caring
Human Rights

As well as various and sundry articles about feminists writers, theory, and the importance as well as practicality of being feminist.



These are essays by mostly women, but a few men as well. All colors and all cultures. One, that has forever impressed me, was by a Native American woman who would not identify as feminist, because her culture didn't start out a patriarchy and she saw colonialism and the destruction of her culture as going way beyond gender.

So I think the auther needs to dig a little deeper. She's actually making the mistake about feminism that feminism had made in its second wave heyday. We are everywhere and we come in colors, cultures and strong opinions.


edit, I also meant to say was what happened to the word feminist was, in a word, patriachy. Always Up Hill battle you know?