"The shift away from an emphasis on Sisterhood has occurred because many women - angered by the insistence on common oppression, shared identity, sameness - criticized or dismissed or dismissed the feminist movement altogether. We are mistaken if we allow these distortions or the women who created them to lead us to devalue Sisterhood. Women are enriched when we bond with one another, but we cannot develop sustaining ties or political solidarity using the model of Sisterhood created by bourgeois women’s liberationists. Working together to expose, examine, and eliminate sexist and racist socialization within ourselves, women would strengthen and affirm one another and build a solid foundation for developing political solidarity."

— bell hooks, feminist theory: from margin to center. (via abbyjean) (via gauntlet)

10:47 am  •  24 October 2009

feminism

abbyjean: sexartandpolitics: I don’t want anybody thinking that straight, cis, men can’t make meaningful contributions to feminist theory and practice. If you’re doing feminism, then keep at it. My irritation was caused by men who who think that, because they are feminist identified, they get a pass on sexist behavior and think there’s no more learning to be done. I’m surprised by how many liberal feminist men took this personally. For one, if you spend time in women’s spaces, you’ve surely learned to perform a mental check as to whether the criticism being voiced applies to you and, if it doesn’t, understand that you’re an exception. This is basic stuff.

10:46 pm  •  23 October 2009

feminism

the-activista:

loveandzombies: peacenikseekspeacenik: noteasybeingred:

Alice Walker’s Definition of a “Womanist” from In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose Copyright 1983.

WOMANIST

1. From womanish.  (Opp. of “girlish,” i.e. frivolous, irresponsible, not serious.)  A black feminist or feminist of color.  From the black folk expression of mothers to female children, “you acting womanish,” i.e., like a woman.  Usually referring to outrageous, audacious, courageous or willful behavior.  Wanting to know more and in greater depth than is considered “good” for one.  Interested in grown up doings.  Acting grown up.  Being grown up.  Interchangeable with another black folk expression: “You trying to be grown.”  Responsible.  In charge. Serious.

2. Also: A woman who loves other women, sexually and/or nonsexually.  Appreciates and prefers women’s culture, women’s emotional flexibility (values tears as natural counterbalance of laughter), and women’s strength.  Sometimes loves individual men, sexually and/or nonsexually.  Committed to survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female.  Not a separatist, except periodically, for health.  Traditionally a universalist, as in: “Mama, why are we brown, pink, and yellow, and our cousins are white, beige and black?” Ans. “Well, you know the colored race is just like a flower garden, with every color flower represented.”  Traditionally capable, as in: “Mama, I’m walking to Canada and I’m taking you and a bunch of other slaves with me.” Reply: “It wouldn’t be the first time.”

3. Loves music.  Loves dance.  Loves the moon. Loves the Spirit. Loves love and food and roundness.  Loves struggle. Loves the Folk.  Loves herself. Regardless.

4. Womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender.

10:50 am  •  22 October 2009

feminism

robot-heart-politics:

I’m seriously going to flood their motherfucking inboxes with articles about rapists, defense lawyers, judges, and any number of other social commentating rape apologists who have all made statements to similar effect.

I’m tired of having this discussion. I’m tired of women who in any normal situation have no problem understanding why it is wrong to reduce a woman to the sum of her outfit, why it is wrong to make assumptions about people based on little more than stereotypes (particularly when it comes to women and sex), and have no difficulties in seeing how either of those things are absolutely based in patriarchal regulation of women’s bodies, sexuality, reproductive systems, etc., turning around and using the same arguments that the motherfuckers they usually rail against use to keep women “in their place.”

I’m not sure what’s so special about Halloween, that it suddenly becomes okay to assume and judge and to play the slut-shame game. Maybe it’s the fact that many of the women who dress up in these costumes aren’t always the women that you like or who normally get your feminist seal of approval. You know, the women who cringe at the word feminist, who go to college for their MRS degree, who join sororities (although, OOPS! I guess I’m guilty there, too), who have sex, but don’t do so for the super-feministy power of ROAR, WOMEN LIKE HAVING SEX, TOO, AND I DON’T NEED YOUR PATRIARCHAL APPROVAL TO HAVE IT! But if you’re only reserving your feminist ideals for the women you like, for the out and out victims of patriarchy, or for the people who share your opinions, then honey, you’re not much of a feminist.

10:49 pm  •  21 October 2009

feminism

women's bodies

patriarchyisbullshit:

Seems like the premise of this article would be a no-brainer, right? But not, apparently, in the age of Palinesque faux feminism. This post is brilliantly written, solidly reasoned, and highly recommended. (I left the author further praise here.)

6:48 pm  •  20 October 2009

feminism

abortion

"

And this is the entire history of feminism and anti-rape activism: the history of people introducing ideas that are seen as prudish and crazy and extreme until they are understood as common sense. Or, in some cases, law.

Here’s a history of some of the crazy ideas advocated by the feminist fringe: that rape is still rape if you were dating or married to your attacker, since knowing or even loving someone does not necessarily make it impossible for that person to hurt you. That a woman’s prior sexual history should not be used as evidence against her in a rape trial, since having consented to sex in the past does not mean that you have implicitly consented to all sex thereafter. That rape is still rape if a woman does not or cannot physically resist her attacker, since it is generally unwise to require that all rapes come with an accompanying beating. That some rapists use no physical force whatsoever, and employ intimidation, coercion or intoxication as weapons, and that it is still rape if compliance is forced through these measures.

All of these ideas were once radical. Indeed, there are still many people who regard some or all of them with deep hostility. But most of them have become central to our understanding of sexual assault, and that understanding is often reflected in the changing rape laws of the last 40 years.

"

— Sady Doyle (via gauntlet)

6:45 am  •  19 October 2009

violence against women

feminism

Safe streets at night is a woman’s right

ROAR feminist collective condemns the police media response to the sexual assault of a woman in a Perth inner city suburb on the evening of Friday 9 October. The police have warned women not to walk alone at night, but failed to comment on the violent and criminal behaviour of the man who committed the assault.

ROAR spokesperson Lianda Gibson said “it is unacceptable that women are still being asked to change their behaviour and have their freedom curtailed because of the disgraceful and violent behaviour of some men. 

Police responses such as this perpetuate a culture of fear which leads to women becoming psychologically imprisoned in their own homes whilst rapists walk the streets.  It contributes to a culture which blames the victims of rape and sexual assault and questions their right to be in public space at night” she said.

This response will only make the streets more unsafe for women by reinforcing that men who rape can control women and take away their right to walk the streets alone.  It is exactly this type of control that these men are seeking” she said.

On the evening of Friday 30 October, women and children will reclaim the streets of Perth at the annual Reclaim the Night event where women will protest for their right to walk at night, free from the threat of rape and sexual violence.

ROAR feminist collective are encouraging women to come out onto the streets to demand their right to safety at night and in public spaces.

“We demand that men within our community start taking responsibility for ending this violent culture which sees women regularly sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and raped on our streets and in our community.

We demand an end to behaviour which inflicts fear and imposes a psychological curfew on women after dark.  We will continue to demand this until the violence stops” Ms Gibson said.

Women will gather for the Reclaim the Night march at 6.30pm at the Wellington Street exit of Perth Train Station.  The march will proceed through Perth city to Stirling Gardens for an evening of speeches, live music and stalls starting at 7.30pm. A children’s space, face painting and food will be available.

For further information please contact Lianda Gibson, ROAR Feminist Collective, 0411 066 595 or roarwomen@hotmail.com

2:43 am  •  16 October 2009

Reclaim the Night

feminism

Hannah from USyd Women’s Collective says:

“I believe in making a distinction between feminists and pro-feminists because I think that it is important for those of us who identify as women to own our dissent and feminist activism. The distinction stems from the concept of autonomous organising which creates space for women to get together to think, learn, discuss, speak and protest without the usual pressures which come from living in a patriarchal culture. I think that “pro-feminist” is a label that one should wear with pride - it indicates to me that this person supports feminist struggles, but realises that these struggles must be led by women if they are to have any real meaning. Afterall, the ability to voice dissent and protest is a right in and of itself.

[If you] appreciate the arguments for autonomous organising, I would encourage you to think about the distinction between ‘feminist’ and ‘pro-feminist’ within this context.”

10:43 pm  •  15 October 2009

feminism

"Being a proper, angry, card-carrying feminist — when my two small daughters fall over, I have taught them to shout, “Thanks for that, the patriarchy” as loudly and sarcastically as possible — I should, all things being right, have a huge pantheon of feminist heroes. I should be racking up admirable chicks in some millennia-deep family tree of XX righteousness. An oestrogen Valhalla of the usual suspects: Boadicea, Cleopatra, African explorers in crinolines, Marie Curie, Nicola Horlick. Maybe Margaret Thatcher, but then, also, obviously, maybe not. Let’s face it: we angry feminists haven’t really finally ratified the Thatcher position yet. For us, Thatcher (first female prime minister = obviously amazing; but then there’s all that bad stuff with the miners and South Africa) is a bit like Gary Glitter for rock fans (back catalogue = obviously amazing; but then there’s all that bad stuff with the kids …)."

— Caitlin Moran on her feminist icons (via gauntlet)

2:43 pm  •  15 October 2009

feminism

Some correspondence regarding the autonomy of Reclaim the Night, to be held in Victoria Park, Sydney at 7pm on Friday 30 October.

R: So, should I go, or would my presence be inappropriate? Looking down the list of invitees, I see that thus far I would be the sole male present, and I can’t tell if that’s because men are discouraged from attending or just because men don’t usually attend this type of event.

M: I asked one of my fellow organisers, and this is what she said:

“As has been the tradition with RTN, it was decided that the Collective would do everything we could to keep it an autonomous event. This means not actively inviting men and explaining to men that the event is autonomous and they should respect that (this is often a good opportunity to explain the merits of autonomous organising with pro-feminist men who may take initial offense at the idea). 

“However, this did not extend to asking men who attend to leave, or telling men outright that they cannot come. It also does not extend to men who are needed for the running of the event (ie. the men who set up the stage/sound etc. and men who are driving women from other cities).

“While this is not very clear-cut, I think generally it works because pro-feminist men should be respectful of the Collective’s decision to hold an autonomous women’s event, and of course they are more than welcome to organise an after-event (or a pre-event) in solidarity. Perhaps you could suggest this to him if he is particularly disappointed :)”

R: In terms of the autonomous nature of the event, I understand completely and am not the least offended. The need for women to articulate their own voices and protests without (even positive) male influence in some instances makes a great deal of sense to me.

That said, I have to say, I am deeply offended by the description of me as “pro-feminist” instead of as “feminist,” as though feminism as a political or social label can only be located onto a female body or, worse, as though feminism as a political or social practice can only be taken up by women as a goal.

Regardless, I hope the event comes of smashingly, and I’ll do whatever I can to support it from afar.

2:42 am  •  15 October 2009

Reclaim the Night

feminism

"Consider, for a moment, those cherished feminine behaviors the heave-ho of which a femininity work-stoppage would necessitate: misogyny, sex**, marriage, reproduction, nuclear familyism, child-rearing and other unpaid labor, attractiveness, head-tilting and other submissive affectations, fashion, glowing skin, letting disaffected musician boyfriends mooch off you, hot girl-on-mop action, etc. And among the counterrevolution’s initial retributive actions would be contempt, spurnage, job loss, poverty, violence, and the potential forfeiture of whatever paltry privileges accrue to women who capitulate.
It’s a tough sell for Western women, despite the fact that, as you have already observed with your keen eye, the consequences of a femininity work-stoppage would be pretty similar to the consequences of the practice of femininity. The difference is that in the hypothetical scenario, women will have put the revolution ahead of the “do whatever we gotta do to survive” oppressor-appeasement clause, thereby acquiring some real fucking leverage at long fucking last.
It is impossible to know what women might do if they had some real fucking leverage. Abolishing Kiss tribute bands would be a good start. Capitalism, government, religion, porn, heteronormativity, and the Housework Industrial Complex** can’t survive without a sex class, so that shit would all go, too. One hopes that the revolution wouldn’t just replace the current patriarchal dystopia with a different one, maybe based on music snobbery or something. Man, I’d be a total outcast in that culture because I only listen to yacht rock. Steely Dan! Who’s with me?"

— The comfortable feminist (via anthropophagous) (via gauntlet)

2:41 pm  •  14 October 2009

feminism

little-mumbles:

A friend rang me recently who I haven’t seen in years. As we engaged in a brief catch up session over the phone, I told him I was slowly converting to hardcore feminism and loving every moment of it. His reply was confusing at first, then upsetting, until I later realised it was downright disgusting. He responded:

“Oh you’re not becoming one of those lesbians are you? That would be such a waste!”

I felt sullied, like I had to justify my sexual preferences, as if that was any of his business, as if sexuality was something you had to justify, something that changed who I was as a person, and how I should be valued. He went on:

“You know I love you. If things hadn’t been different, if I hadn’t met my girlfriend before you, we’d be married with 8 kids by now. You know I love you. Don’t be a lesbian. That would be such a waste.”

Again, like as if choosing or not choosing to sleep with another woman changed my intrinsic value as a person, sullied my chances of achieving my full potential for qualifying as a “real” girl, as an upstanding hot straight chick.

I made hesitant excuses about being too crazy busy and disorganised to make a time to meet up for coffee right then and there. I said I’d text him a time. I’ll text you. You’ll text me. Ok? Ok.

Days passed. I kept thinking about the abrupt strangeness of hearing from him again, the possibility of having him back in my life. The oddness of what he had said. Weeks passed. I felt resentful. I didn’t want to make a time.

Eventually, I explained to a friend how odd it was that guys that used to be in my life can’t seem to let me go, and a message was sent from my phone saying something like “I don’t want to see you. It would be weird and inappropriate.”

I still feel kind of bad about the message, as if I wasn’t being faithful to what had been, in the past, an awesome friendship. But really, in the end, I don’t think I want a friendship with someone who treats such destructive and shallow stereotypes as trivial conversation. Even if he was just flirting with me, it wasn’t funny. We both have long term partners. I’m pretty sure that, although the text was almost mean, it was the right thing to do.

10:21 pm  •  13 October 2009

sexuality

feminism

(via the-activista)

11:37 am  •  12 October 2009

feminism

abbyjean:

Dear Feministing, I’ve been reading you guys for a while now. I haven’t always liked everything you do or say, but I think that you bring some important issues to my attention and sometimes some good conversations happen on your website.

But, you know, in recent months I’ve become increasingly disturbed by the exclusionary language and attitudes I see on your site, most particularly in reference to people with disabilities and people in lower social classes. You have a pretty poor track record on even covering disability issues, and the casual ableism which I see in your comment threads and sometimes in your very posts is extremely grating. It is especially irritating to see dismissive responses from site administrators when this issue is brought up.

Today’s post on chivalry was the last straw. Courtney used the line “If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I’m an invalid, not so feminist.” This is offensive.

I’d like to point you to a piece I wrote recently, “Why Inclusionary Language Matters,” because I think you need to read it. Using ableist language is not just offensive, it’s antifeminist.

And I would really appreciate it if y’all would stop doing it and stop tolerating it in your comment threads. I would also love to see y’all including more posts talking about topics related to disability and disability issues. Please address this. Feminism includes people with disabilities. Disability is a feminist issue. Please make Feministing more inclusionary.

cosign. thanks also to @amndaw and @challyztb for raising the issue.

3:29 pm  •  8 October 2009

feminism

the-activista:

A Millburn, New Jersey High School has garnered the attention of the New York Times for a traditional publishing of a “slut list,” and has raised questions about how the word resonates with young women today.

In a world where women are denied the ability and the right to articulate desire and practice sexuality the way men are, it is impossible to judge the way “slut” affects that. For some girls, “slut” may be an accomplishment- but only in a society where women achieve status through men’s validation. For others, “slut” is a word with hateful connotations, furthering the message that female sexuality is dangerous, wrong, and free from pleasure-seeking.

In other words, women of the world: either fix the word “slut,” or fix the society that condones it. Call to action!

3:25 pm  •  6 October 2009

feminism