Tags
feminism, feminist mewlings, general bullshit analysis, hypocrites, independent thinking, keeping it real, Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon.com, sexuality
Created by me, at Some E-cards.
A writer at Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams, decries celebrity women who vocally disavow any association with feminism or identifying as a feminist. She specifically names singer Katy Perry and former supermodel, former First Lady of France, and singer Carla Bruni-Sarkozy as women who apparently shame all of our lady parts by not identifying as feminists. In the case of Bruni-Sarkozy, who bluntly stated that, “We don’t need to be feminist in my generation.” She later recanted part of her statements, which were apparently taken out of context.
Next up is Katy Perry. Let me say out front, I can’t stand Katy Perry as I think she completely lacks talent or any artistic merit and is over-hyped to boot. I literally feel my brain turning to mush and my soul dying just a little more every time I hear one of her songs or see her face. I long for the day a black hole swallows her along with Chris Brown, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, and most of the people who have ever been on American Idol. That said, I am definitely defending her right to not identify as feminist. Katy believes in the strength of women but doesn’t identify as a feminist. MEW and most of the comment thread is up in arms and can’t understand how Katy can think of the two as not mutually inclusive.
Created by me, at the Futurama Fry meme generator.
How could anyone not want to be feminist?! I mean, sure, there are a couple (several) of vocal (disproportionately so) feminists (actually misogynists and misandrists) who give the rest of feminism (mainstream and many of its tributaries) a bad name (by openly stating what many prefer to whisper, ideally behind fans and handkerchiefs), but who cares about them (besides the politicians and lawmakers and journalists who give them the time of day)? That was pretty much the reaction of MEW and the comment thread. There were a few voices of reason that tried to point out the imperialist attitudes of mainstream Western feminism (predominantly white, middle-class, college-educated, north of the Mason-Dixon line) and how they regard women of color/non-white women within their own countries as well as abroad.
Hell, ask any Muslim woman who decides on her own to don the traditional coverings and is told by a Western feminist that she can’t possibly be making that decision freely within the ever oppressive Patriarchal context. You know, the one where all women are children unless anointed otherwise by the Great Wise Council of Feminists.
Of course, ask any sex worker who is fully aware and in control of herself and her life choices, even if some of those choices are ill-advised. We’ve been told that we don’t exist. Or if we do, we’re not representative– one of those rare occasions where the voice of a minority is not championed. You know how feminists like to say and support the concept, in other contexts, that the majority should not dictate the freedoms of the minority. Yeah, not in the case of us “non-representative” sex workers, who are some elite cadre of Super Whores (thanks for the compliment). No…we just need to shut up and stop interacting with people like we’re human or some shit.
Created by me, at Some E-cards.
The first cry given on the feminist defensive line is, “We’re not all man-hating, femininity-hating, frumpy activists!” No, of course you’re not all like that. But all of your derisive comments about male sexuality (primarily heterosexual males), all your bitchy comments about women who enjoy feminine trappings, all your sneering snits about women who have cosmetic surgery, and just general patronizing twattery certainly indicate otherwise. It is one thing to say, for example, I don’t understand why I would need to wear makeup; it is quite another to say, feminists don’t wear make up and any woman who does is merely slavishly following the dictates of Patriarchy.
The second cry is, “You just want to please teh menz!” The implied inverse being, “Since you are not aiming to please us, the Great Wise Council of Feminists.” This is particularly hilarious because the men we’re supposedly betraying the sisterhood to please are apparently the same raging, misogynist, douchebags who wouldn’t respect a woman’s opinion no matter what it is. So, how would disdaining mainstream feminism bring about this machismo happiness? That’s right, not at all. And yes, I have made plenty of men happy and I am not ashamed to say so; but it was with my boundaries and self-esteem and individuality (and stubbornness!) firmly in tact and I dare say such traits were a turn-on for the men, not a turn off.
The general No True Scotsman mentality of feminists like MEW prevents any ability to seriously consider the objections of women who have very specific reasons to reject the label of feminist. To do that is to admit flaws, guilt, and yes, collusion at times with the very structure they claim to be raging against.
Absolutely. Fucking. Brilliant!
*curtsy* Merci beaucoup!
Yeah. What you said.
Pingback: That Was the Week That Was (#50) « The Honest Courtesan
It goes back to the highly erroneous assumption that seems to pervade the minds of many…”one represents all.”
There’s only one way to be a woman.
That’s 3.5 billion people. Fully half or more of humanity. Yet somehow they are all supposed to have the same attitude, perspectives, and behavior.
And of course, the Feminist cry of “Don’t let a man tell you what to do! Let US tell you what to do! Because that’s better!”
I dunno….between reading Maggie’s column & this one…I feel the embers of hope fading.
Some days, I try not being pessimistic. It does very well for the wine industry, I must say.
Perfect! You forgot one huge maligned group of woman-traitors: stay at home wives and mothers. Why, our whole lives are dedicated to the happiness of others, which would be perfectly fine if we:
Owned our own restaurant
Ran a housekeeping business
Worked at a daycare center
Offered organizational and time-management services
Owned a laundromat
See, that way, women like MEW could USE us, but as it stands, only our familiies benefit from our services, and women who CANNOT be exploited by other women are obviously betraying all women everywhere.
I didn’t include “work at a brothel”, because even if I straight up sold sex for cash, I would still be betraying women, because my clients would be MEN.
Feminism doesn’t JUST hate men, it hates women, too. Women that can’t be controlled. Those bitches.
Stay at home wives and mothers are definitely included as that would be one of the “wrong choices”, I hinted at in that first Some E-card. While my maman wasn’t a full-time SAHM, she did take a couple years off working when my brother was born and stayed home with me until I was about five years old. The only reason she ever went back to work is because of pressure from my father. Though her maman worked, her grandma came up from Alabama to stay at home with my mother because it was important to have someone at home for her.
aspasia wrote,
general patronizing twattery…
I LOVE that turn of phrase.
I think it was in “Sex, Art, and American Culture” that Camille Paglia pointed out that the dominant feminist hierarchy was as closed and tyrannical as anything the patriarchy (at least in modern America) had produced.
I compare the pampered lives of the neo-feminists with what I know of my female progenitors’ lives and come to the conclusion that those hothouse flowers couldn’t have handled one tenth of the adversity my ancestresses dealt with and thus have no moral high ground from which to dispense judgement. I’d rather have congress with an honest whore than a judgemental prig. And judgemental prigs are about all that is left to neo-feminism.
Thank you!
I absolutely agree. A lot of those neo-feminists couldn’t handle most of what my ancestresses went through either, though some of them had it better than most. Still, they got through it not by complaining but by doing and thumbing their noses at the racism and sexism that would have otherwise overtaken them.
I completely accept what you are saying but isn’t it a generalisation to suggest all feminists are anti-sex work? I don’t see myself in your definition of feminism. (Nor
Simone de Beauvoir!)…. Rather than using what may be (and I say may because I always doubt statistics) the view of the majority of feminists as a reason not to identify as feminist, why not argue, like I do, that you can be both? Otherwise you are saying that someone else’s feminism is more valid than your own which I don’t accept.
Thank you for your reply, Marie-Anne! But:
1. I have identified with other strains of feminism and found most of them wonting, including sex-positive feminism which has contracting this nasty strain of conservatism of late. Others are more than welcome to “work to change feminism from the inside” and I wish them the best of luck. However, I wish to direct those energies, to quote Ghandi, to being the change I want to see in the world.
2. While that is fantastic that your feminism is more open-minded and you know others who are the same, have you considered that you may be in a bubble? It is very easy to believe, when surrounded by like minds, that yours are the dominant philosophy. I know that because I used to consider myself a sex-positive feminist and lived within a similar bubble.
But even among some sex-positive folks, who accept all other forms of alternative sexuality, they hesitate about approving, or even outright disapprove, of sex work, especially prostitution. The most positive view a mainstream feminist has about sex workers is as a “necessary evil”. That’s….that’s not supporting us.
FeministWhore and Maggie McNeill both define themselves as a very specific breed of feminist, but both of those lovely ladies also understand that theirs is not the dominant discourse in feminism.
3. Since feminism doesn’t get counted on a census, it is difficult for anyone to generalize, I agree. However, the dominant discourse is anti-sex work, conservative, and formulaic. The public faces of feminism do not acknowledge sex work outside of the most exploitative, negative, and nightmarish scenarios and refuse to accept or consider any other experiences. When a more holistic acknowledgement of sex work is included in the mainstream feminist discourse (along with many, many other additions, such as the concerns of women of color, transwomen, SAHM, etc.) without having to be reminded to include these concerns then yes, they will have earned my respect and allegiance. You’ll excuse me if I decide against holding my breath on that one; breath play can be deadly if not done correctly.
Finally, isn’t it rather telling that there has to be all these offshoots of feminism because the mainstream (aka ‘dominant’) feminism isn’t acknowledging it?
“I have identified with other strains of feminism and found most of them wonting, including sex-positive feminism which has contracting this nasty strain of conservatism of late.”
Thanks for letting me know I’m not alone in my perceptions in that regard. I’ve identified as “sex-positive” for many years after encountering the writing of Susie Bright, Ellen Willis, and Pat Califia, and have always been very much in agreement with their ideas on sexual and gender politics. The kind of “sex positive” feminism I’ve seen around the blogosphere over the last couple of years seems increasingly disconnected from that, and seems to be pretty much an odd merger of old-school “there is no real consent under patriarchy” feminism plus BDSM-style negotiation and safewords. These people act as if nobody has consensual sex outside of their narrow little kinky feminist milieu.
This kind of stuff gets very old very fast. I live in San Francisco, which seems to be ground zero for this mentality, and I actively avoid the local “sex positive” scene at this point due to the sheer negativity it emanates.
“But even among some sex-positive folks, who accept all other forms of alternative sexuality, they hesitate about approving, or even outright disapprove, of sex work, especially prostitution.”
This has not been true (so far as I can tell) of any of the numerous feminists I know IRL or follow online.
Yes, I see that you would suggest I’m unknowingly within a “bubble” of minority views within feminism, but I’m not clear on how such a thing is determined: has there been some sort of feminist census I’ve missed that surveys all of the attitudes and philosophies within the movement? Is there some “official” feminist newsletter that outlines the current party line? Sure, I may be in a bubble, but have you considered the contrasting possibility that you may be unknowingly operating with a definition of feminism that is outdated, distorted, selectively omissive, or otherwise not indicative of current feminist thought?
Look, I’m not here to shame you over how you choose to self-identify (or not). That’s your right and your business. But when you attack feminism as a whole, you are attacking a great many people who, as far as I can tell, would agree with and support you. Seems to me that attacking specific attitudes, ideas, and actions is far more precise than carpet-bombing an entire movement that may or may not be primarily composed of the people you’re actually upset with.
I am glad I am not alone in this. I think it is very easy to forget the huge impact feminism(s) made, socially, culturally. With my art historian’s hat on, for instance, feminist scholarship in the 70s and 80s was huge in recovering and encouraging the work of female artists (the practice of Faith Ringgold, Judy Chicago etc.was truly transgressive at the tiime); likewise activists like The Guerilla Girls etc. Yes, regrettably, feminism did often pursue a white, middleclass agenda but it was a starting point not an endpoint.
*slow claps*
Feminism of the 1980s was especially obnoxious (thank you, Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon!) and reignited the conservative, anti-sex, misogynistic, and misandrist disease that infests most other forms of feminism; these symptoms first appeared in the “white, middle-class” feminism of the Victorian Era, which seems to be the time of the first, strongly organized expression of feminism in the Western nations.
According to a lot of non-white feminists whose blogs I’ve read, feminism hasn’t much progressed pass that “white, middle-class” agenda.
But that won’t stop you from mouthing off, now will it?
I would never say that you are unknowingly within a bubble; you definitely know. You defined your bubble in the first sentence of your reply. That you haven’t had the experience of encountering such attitudes doesn’t automatically make you a bubble-dweller, but not even considering the possibility that these issues are out there does.
Ms. Magazine, for starters. Followed up by popular feminist blogs such as Jezebel and Feministe. Who is quoted in mainstream media? Who are the feminists who are household names in the average American household that isn’t necessarily very politically aware?
And here is where you are so ridiculously ignorant of what I am talking about. The definition of feminism I am operating with is the one that enthusiastically joins with law enforcement and religious conservatives to make my chosen job more difficult and dangerous. The definition of feminism I am operating with is the one that disguises their contempt of sex and sexual women behind “progressive” words and ideas that are anything but. The definition of feminism I am operating with is one that mocks women for deciding to be Stay-at-home Mothers/Wives; that criticizes women who choose to wear traditional coverings for their own, self-aware reasons; that still ignores the issues brought up by black feminists (or womanists, after Alice Walker’s coinage), based on the blogs I’ve read; that, overall, takes a condescending and imperialistic approach to non-Western women within their own countries. The definition of feminism I am operating with is the one where feminists who are ignorant (or just playing such) of the conservative and even misogynistic form of politically and socially powerful feminism defend said feminism with mealy-mouthed attacks against other women who have been harmed (or very likely to be harmed) by the agenda of these dominant, mainstream feminists.
You clearly read my response to Marie-Anne, why didn’t you read any of the other responses I made wherein I talked about my other experiences with various different feminist thoughts? Oh, wait, that wouldn’t allow you to go on your half-witted attack, now would it?
Except that is exactly what you are attempting to do. Your entire response reeks with the pompous, condescending attitude that I disdain so much in feminists these days.
I am so glad you’re here to give me my rights.
So, will the support not be forthcoming because other sex workers like me who have a huge problem with the majority of feminists and feminism these days dare to speak out? “Be good little girls or we won’t support you!”
This really does sum up your willful ignorance of the issue. This entire post, as well as others before it in the same category, was very specific about the attitudes, ideas, and actions I find objectionable. In other similar posts, I even name names. To be even more specific in the future, your name will be added to that list. Is that specific enough for you?
I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to attack you. My experiences with feminism are obviously very different than yours, and I’m clearly ignorant of the “mainstream” attitudes regarding a number of issues.
Again, I and the other self-identified feminists I know agree with you on the issues cited. I bristled at being lumped in with views I disagree with based on a common label, but this, of course, misses the main point you were making. Sorry for the derail.
As feminism evolves, I hope its mainstream becomes more respectful of you and your choices. You should not have to put up with the criticism you are receiving, and I’m sorry I piled my voice on top of the others attacking you.
DD, I thank you very much for this response. I’m glad we have come to an understanding.
May I ask, do you feel as though you can change feminism from within? To take on the dominant and popular voices of feminism that are known in mainstream media? You seem motivated enough to take on that fight. If that is the case, then I support you 100%. I, personally, would prefer to use that energy toward my escort work and my academic pursuits.
“May I ask, do you feel as though you can change feminism from within? To take on the dominant and popular voices of feminism that are known in mainstream media?”
Well, I’m not sure how much power or influence I have personally, but I’ll certainly do what I’m able to, and combat this sort of hypocrisy when I encounter it, as well as supporting more prominent voices likewise trying to push for these sorts of changes within feminism. Like you, I have professional and academic obligations distracting me currently, but I’m (hopefully) working my way towards a career that will give me a bit more opportunity to make some change, and now that I’ve read this article and you’ve drawn my attention to these issues, I’ll certainly keep them in mind.
Thanks for writing about to these problems, and I’m sorry again for my defensiveness earlier.
Aspasia-If you ever find yourself in Denver for a couple days, lets sit down for a cup of tea. I am absolutely, positively in love with your mind, and I am certain that it would be an even more mind blowing experience to meet you in person, even if I have to break open the piggy bank.
Oh, you have no idea how mind blowing it will be!
Feel free to email me to see how big of a hammer you’ll need to break open that piggy bank: cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com
Zoot alors! I am finally catching up on my e-mails so expect a piggy bank inquiry in the next two days. Pardon the delay, but I have been working like a maniac on two articles, the first of which–”If You Don’t Secede”–was published yesterday on OpEdNews.
I look forward to it!
And I will check out that article tonight! Are the two articles related to each other or are they separate?
All of my articles are “related” in the broadest sense of the term, because they are about trying to achieve that ever elusive ideal of “justice” for as many as is humanly possible. This going back to the topic here on your blog is what “feminism” I thought was supposed to be about: not an artificial “equality” with so many damned rules you cannot help but break one or more, but a system of more perfect justice, where your sex–as well as your sexual orientation–has less importance than the “content of your character,” as Dr. King said. Most of the neo-Marxist feminists we have running around today would be a huge disappointment to Karl Marx; speaking as one of the few people I know who has actually read everything that Marx has written that has been translated into English. Marx’s solutions were generally wrong, but they were wrong because: a) he really didn’t understand human psychology; b) the laissez-faire capitalist system was so damned new, any solution he came up with would be a WAG–Wild-Assed Guess.
I thoroughly agree. I will be getting back to your email soon.
Pingback: The War on Definitions | VoVatia
What amuses me about the link is this pingback is one of the responses given on the thread. The commenter epitomizes exactly what frustrates those of us who refuse to identify as feminists. According to this person, it is because of a “right-wing perversion of the term,” not because there are a mass of feminists who are ignorant, hateful twats and dominate the discourse so that they stand opposed to any woman who makes choices that offend their delicate sensibilities. And this obnoxious lack of self-reflection is what will continue to keep women like me away from accepting the feminist label.
Reblogged this on annemodus and commented:
An absolutely brilliant blog post from La Libertine Salon!
Awesome piece Aspasia. Thank you for saying i!
You are more than welcome. I need to add a link to APNSW on my links list but I’ve been lazy about that. APNSW does fantastic work.
These western feminists of course treat the majority of feminists in developing countries- who now show increasingly strong support for sex workers rights and many of whom have worked side by side with sex workers to set up real sex worker run organisations, in much the same way they treat sex workers in western countries. But with a huge amount of racism and neo-colonialism thrown in…(needless to say)
It was an exciting moment in Istanbul in April at the AWID conference (3000+ feminists who work in development) to have close to 2000 (mostly) women stand up and chant sex work is work when Kaythi Win from APNSW gave a plenary presentation calling on feminists to stop the silent collusion with the feminist fundamentalist anti-traffickers. Janice Raymond and about 20 of her hardline sisters of course didn’t stand but I reckon they were shocked and horrified at the number who did.
That is amazing, Andrew! Did anyone happen to be recording that moment in the conference? I would love to see it. Raymond and company probably were shocked and horrified that for once they were the minority opinion.
Western feminists treating feminists in developing countries in a patronizing manner is unsurprising to me, as a brown woman myself. It is amazing how many western feminists ignore that accusation when it is brought up, especially in a conversation similar to my post. The western feminists want the women in the developing countries to basically adopt western culture (especially the puritanical Anglo-American) and can’t believe when these women aren’t willing to completely ditch their culture in the fight for equality.
Here is the link to Kaythi’s speech. There is a video of the speech on the APNSW Youtube channel
http://apnsw.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/plenary-speech-by-kaythi-win-chairperson-of-apnsw-at-awid-forum-in-istanbul-21-april-2012/
Thank you, Andrew! I didn’t know APNSW had a YouTube channel. I will definitely subscribe to it.
I made a similar ecard a while ago
Ooh, would you mind posting it again? I’d love to see it.
Hmm, I thought I did! I guess I didn’t embed it properly. Here’s the link:
http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi0zNDdjZWExMTgwMzg4MThh#link
LOL! Love it! I think us advocates should make a tonne of our own Some E-Cards.
Katy Perry is HOT! I wish she did sex work! LOL
That aside, our problem is the “ism’s”, and more particularly the labeling of people as this or that.
I had the pleasure of listening to Cecil Reed (author of “fly in the buttermilk) speak about labels, and he is so right about how the problem is how we label people, in that it only serves to divide us.
Pingback: That Was the Week That Was (#50)
Iamcuriousblue, that is it exactly.
Reblogged this on elevatorgate and commented:
ESSENTIAL READING FOR MELODY HENSLEY
This is so apropos!
For context:
Thank you for all your thoughtful responses, Aspasia and apologies for harping on but am I curious to know whether you feel feminist scholarship has inspired your academic studies at all as an art historian?
I’m not talking Dworkin here…. (maybe it’s a cultural difference between US and UK but from my memory of the 80s Dworkin was definitely not perceived as mainstream feminism here in the UK; she was considered radical). Maybe these are names that had more impact in the UK but I am thinking of people like Griselda Pollock, Sonia Boyce, Linda Nochlin…
No need for apologies.
To answer your question, not very much. At least not in any overwhelmingly positive way. Most of the feminist art historical scholarship to which I was introduced was highly critical of any depiction of sex, nudity, and eroticism in art that featured women where it was my opinion that several these scholarly writings were influenced by personal biases and “squeaks”. You should see the way my eyes roll whenever I see the phrase “male gaze” and the (usual) subsequent pearl-clutching thereafter.
And yes, I’ve read a lot of feminist scholarship on art and art history, including all of the women you named. I wrote my senior thesis on Berthe Morisot, her role within the Impressionist movement, her present-day fame and lack thereof (in America, at least) and what part her gender and class (and culture) played and how the intersection of her gender and class worked against her in the iconography chosen for her Impressionist oeuvre. I know a lot of feminists who hate her, but Camille Paglia has some very good arguments regarding art history and I want to read her new book Glittering Images. I don’t agree with all of her arguments, and even disagree with her argument that there could never be a woman genius in the field of art or music, but her writings give a great platform to argue for or against.
Well, funnily I was giving a class on Morisot to a small group of female curators and we all agreed we should appreciate her more. Glittering Images will have to be on my to-read list too. I like many of Paglia’s arguments though I think she overplays the importance of Madonna and the idea that there can’t be a woman genius…well, that’s the kind of thinking that’s led to short-sighted acquisition policies in museums. We are very lucky in London to have free access to lots of art but women are still under-represented in key institutions. And this is especially true of black female artists and curators.
I’m also pretty aghast at how polarized the whole thing has become. Just the other day, Greta Christina said that “not being a feminist is reprehensible“, which is just a jaw-droppingly fanatical thing to say. I can’t imagine her saying something like that as recently as a year ago.
This whole attitude of “Feminism: FOR OR AGAINST?” is just crazy. I mean, I find some feminism wrongheaded, actively dislike some feminist ideas and individuals, even find a few quite loathsome. I also think very highly of some feminists and feminism, in fact, I count Ellen Willis in particular as one of my greatest political influences. It really depends on the kinds of things they support and how they treat other people. In any event, I find feminism on the whole just too much of a mixed bag to adopt the label. In particular as a man, I don’t feel that it’s my movement to try and change, but just being a follower of the movement status quo isn’t acceptable to me either, and it’s been made quite clear to me that there is no place in that movement for principled critical support.
WHAT?!
That is extremely disappointing coming from Greta Christina, especially considering her atheist activism. If someone said that about being a Christian (wait, they do), she would rightly have a fit. This is why Maggie McNeill refers to feminism as a religion.
I see you are taking the usual names and kicking the usual asses, Aspasia…nice to see consistency reigns supreme.
I tend to be more for feminism than against it, because the program of women’s equality still has a great deal to go; nevertheless, I never underestimate the ability of some feminists to overshoot the mark and completely miss what activist sex workers are saying. I wouldn’t go so far as to praise libertarian conservatives (never mind Camille Paglia, whom I consider to be a carnival side show whom has mooched off legitimate lefty pro-sex feminists like Susie Bright and Gayle Rubin and Amber Hollibaugh and Pat(rick) Califia for far too long)..but that “stopped clock” thing still racks my brain sometimes.
I happen to like Greta Christina, too…but that doesn’t mean she can’t overcook it on occasion…as she has with the whole Atheism+ debacle and this latest militancy. The problem is not religion per se, it’s the abuse of power and the justification of inequality.
Anthony
(been out for a while; nice to be back here)
Thank you, Anthony!
But I have to ask, exactly how does Paglia “mooch” off any of those other writers you named?
Pingback: And thank you for proving my point « La Libertine's Salon
Pingback: The Problem With A Name | La Libertine's Salon