Why do you buy into the right-wing stereotype of feminists as hairy, ugly beasts? Even if the stereotype were true (and by and large, it’s not), why do you hate other women so much? Just because they aren’t as pretty as you apparently think you are? FYI, I’m a feminist, I’m a homemaker and I wax my eyebrows and wear lipstick.

And really, where do you think you’d be right now if not for the work of feminists? The feminist movement fought for all those things you now take for granted. You say you don’t need feminists to get where you are but you wouldn’t have the opportunities you have now (the right to work, vote, use contraception, have choices) if not for the hard work of feminists who continue to fight for you.

Comment by a feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 10:33 am

Your very use of the term “right-wing” to describe my frequent, face-to-face experience with loudly proclaimed feminists is itself a stereotype. The rallying cry of feminists as I have experienced them is “sex object!” as if it were a negative thing. It is not — sex is power and empowering and that is why some of the most powerful women in history have been mistresses, concubines, wives and courtesans.

Feminists do not fight for me, I fight for myself. Women have been admired for teaching and writing, creating art and advancing science, and playing politics for millenia. Woman have been doing for themselves since we came down out of the trees and learned that we MUST do for ourselves NOW because the men are elsewhere and won’t be back until later.

Should Catherine d’Medici bow down in obsequious gratitude to the feminist movement? Aspasia? Cleopatra VII? Artemisia the painter or Artemesia the Queen of Helicarnassus? Baodicea? Elizabeth I? Victoria I? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Saint Eloise? Catherine the Great? Sojourner Truth? Susan B. Anthony? Dorothy Day? Mother Theresa? Mary Magdalene?

Feminists do not fight for me, I fight for myself. And I take nothing for granted. Feminists did not work their asses off to earn my college degree, I did. Feminists did not work long years to buy my home, I did. Feminists do not pay my mortgage or do the repair and remodeling work, I do. Feminists do not suffer the slings and arrows of my disposition, I do.

I quote something my stage mother sent me a few years ago about Texas women:

Our women hunt, shoot, drink beer and drive trucks because the WANT to. So you’re a feminist. How cute.

I am a strong, intelligent, educated woman because I WANT to be and because I HAVE to be. Not because I feel obligated or responsible or grateful to any cultural movement.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 11:06 am

You have a lot to learn about history. Some of those women you mention were self-identified feminists. And others were the exception, not the rule. And it simply not true that women have been valued as teachers, artists, etc for millennia.

It’s fine if you don’t wish to join the feminist movement but please don’t bash what we do. You benefit from our work whether you wish to admit it or not. The fact remains, you wouldn’t be able to attend college, work as you do, own property or even use birth control without the work of feminists and the people who support them.

Consider learning more about feminism before you condemn it. I assure you, we like sex just fine.

Comment by a feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 11:32 am

This is just a cute little list I thought I’d share … might be a good place to start:

http://www.mediagirl.org/2005/03/international-womens-day-or-reasons-to-thank-a-feminist

Comment by a feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 11:41 am

And this:

http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Comment by a feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 11:43 am

I beg your pardon, but I would be willing to bet that you know little to nothing about half the women I named, even if you had heard of them before. And between my post and your reply you had plenty of time to Google every one of them.

And as the holder of a B.A. in the Classics with a minor in History, I would urge prudence when challenging my knowledge of the field.

Dorothy Day was a Catholic. Susan B. Anthony was a suffragist. Mother Theresa was a nun and a woman of God. These were the founts of their idealism and activism, not feminism. Please name one other woman on that list that ’self-identified’ as a feminist, since the word “feminism” was not coined until 1851 and carried the meaning “the state of being feminine”. The connotation “advocacy of women’s rights” did not attach until about 1895 in an article about a French suffragist. The terms “feminism” and “feminist” as used today did not come into common usage until the 1960s. Until that time the term “female liberationist” was the preferred term and one that I can hold in higher regard.

OF COURSE they were the exception, every human being in history who stood up above the crowd and said “I am different and I will act from my heart and conscience and duty regardless of the consequences!” was an exception. And they should be respected and admired regardless of their gender.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 11:46 am

And I find your shark-jumping amendation that feminists ‘like sex just fine” fascinating in a Freudian sort of way.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 11:46 am

Go back and read your list again and imagine how much more those women might have achieved had they been born into a more enlightened time. Artemisia’s rapist would (one hopes) have received a real punishment; Eloise could have had the sexual relationship she clearly longs for in her letters; and Cleopatra, the Magdalene, and Aspasia would not have had to defend themselves against charges of being whores their entire lives. Who knows what work Artemisia would have been able to produce had she been allowed to study from male nudes? Elizabeth R. would have been more secure with her throne in the early years of her reign had she been male and might have avoided some of the religious problems that clouded her later reign. It’s not that feminists deny that sexuality can be a powerful tool, but it is not enough.

Comment by Katherine — July 6, 2005 @ 11:58 am

Someone who fights with links instead their own impassioned arguments should step back and take a deep breath, gather their thoughts and put them forward. When I use links I do so for further information, or with full acknowledgement that someone has expressed a thought better than I could.

tomatonation.com: If that’s a feminist, then I am a proud humanist because I believe that women’s rights to dignity and respect are secondary when those rights are denied to millions of human beings for reasons that have nothing to do with their gender. Ensure that the 6 year child in Darfur has the same basic human rights as a 6 year old child in Omaha, regardless of gender. When you’ve accomplished that, we’ll move on to other things.

www.mediagirl.com: I don’t have to thank a cultural or political movement that has existed for less time than the Constitution of the United States for any of those things. I have to thank a species and a civilization that has (Thank God) continued to evolve over the course of 10,000 years to eventually recognize all the humans walking this planet have equal value to both benefit from and exercise their humanity to other human beings.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 11:58 am

“Artemisia’s rapist would (one hopes) have received a real punishment”

You don’t mention which Artemisa, but Helicarnassus was one of the fiercest warriors in the Persian empire and randy as hell, and historical evidence supports the probability that the painter was in a mutual relationship.

“Eloise could have had the sexual relationship she clearly longs for in her letters.” She and Abelard did have a sexual relationship, and it was he who paid for it, not her.

“Cleopatra, the Magdalene, and Aspasia would not have had to defend themselves against charges of being whores their entire lives.” Cleopatra was the daughter, sister, wife and mother of Pharoahs, not to mention Pharoah and high priestess herself. Nobody ever accused her of being a whore. Nowhere in the Bible is the Magdalene EVER referred to as a prostitute, although the poorer translations imply it. And Aspasia WAS a whore — the most celebrated madame in Athens, in fact, and her philosophical symposia were attended by no less than Socrates himself. Until Pericles moved her into his house and she bore his heir.

“Who knows what work Artemisia would have been able to produce had she been allowed to study from male nudes? Elizabeth R. would have been more secure with her throne in the early years of her reign had she been male and might have avoided some of the religious problems that clouded her later reign.”

Who knows what Da Vinci would have produced if he hadn’t committed suicide, or what Mozart would have produced if he hadn’t died of consumption. That’s not argument, that’s reductio ad absurdam, the snake just bites its tail. And you just said yourself that Elizabeth’s problems were religious; generations of male European monarchs had the same problem and fared no better than she did against, and most fared considerably worse.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 12:07 pm

Were you the fat girl in school? Did people make fun of you for being ugly? Is that why you’re insanely terrified of even the slightest chance someone might call you a (GASP!) ‘fat, ugly feminist’? I have to agree with Jessica - suck it up.

Comment by Jade — July 6, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

I assure you I have a bachelors in history myself and am very familiar with the women you cite.

And my comment about feminists liking sex was in response to you suggesting that we viewed sex negatively.

In any case, I didn’t mean to make you angry. I just wanted to refute some of your assumptions about feminism. The feminism you describe is not the one that I am familiar with. I apologize if I offended you.

Comment by a feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 12:24 pm

I am not at all offended, A Feminist, I’m just a fierce intellectual snob who loves a fight and you’re giving me a good one! I’m enjoying it…

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 12:27 pm

Hey. I’m a lesbian (who wears lipstick and loves to get her eyebrows waxed) and I don’t get the double entendre. Care to explain, or give me a hint?

Comment by Mary — July 6, 2005 @ 12:43 pm

Well Mary, the association I immediately made when I read the title (I could be wrong) is between feminism and fisting.

And somehow the symbol of the Black Hand Anarchists also came to mind, which makes me think that I need to watch an Adam Sandler movie or something to realign my intellectual gyroscope, because I’m going waaaaaay off the reservation.

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 12:46 pm

Maybe you should read some books to do with feminism to compliment all the books you’ve read on history and classics. If you’re going to be anti-feminist, you could at least come up with some better arguments than that we’re hairy. You might even find a niche within feminism that suits your views - you don’t have to like every feminist to be one yourself.
If you’re playing devil’s advocate out of intellectual snobbery, there are better things to spend your time attacking than feminism. You live in the US, have a look around you!

Comment by Polly — July 6, 2005 @ 4:16 pm

Should Catherine d’Medici bow down in obsequious gratitude to the feminist movement? Aspasia? Cleopatra VII? Artemisia the painter or Artemesia the Queen of Helicarnassus? Baodicea? Elizabeth I? Victoria I? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Saint Eloise? Catherine the Great? Sojourner Truth? Susan B. Anthony? Dorothy Day? Mother Theresa? Mary Magdalene?

(Or Sappho, Joan of Arc, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Seacole, Eleanor Rathbone, the Grimke sisters, and so on) no. But no-one should. We who can now vote, though, should acknowledge the suffragists and suffragettes — who if feminism means a belief in female equality, certainly were feminists. Women in medical school and law school should acknowledge the women pioneers and the (sorry..) feminist groups that made further advance possible. (Etc.)

You say

Susan B. Anthony was a suffragist… (this was) the (fount) of (her) idealism and activism, not feminism

which is a strange reading of Anthony (and Cady Stanton, and Victoria Woodhull) and must rest on your

“since the word “feminism” was not coined until 1851 and carried the meaning “the state of being feminine”. The connotation “advocacy of women’s rights” did not attach until about 1895 in an article about a French suffragist. The terms “feminism” and “feminist” as used today did not come into common usage until the 1960s. Until that time the term “female liberationist” was the preferred term and one that I can hold in higher regard.”

which — with all due respect — avoids the issue; that “female liberationist” was at some point replaced by “feminist” has to do with fashions of naming, says nothing about these women’s commitments and views.

Moreover the radical wing of the sixties “movement” (of which I was a part) was in fact called the Women’s Liberation Movement (I think the more centrist wing was too); “feminism” was adopted later, I have often thought, as a more placatory term. (I am happy with either.)

I agree with Polly: you should read some books about the feminist movement, something like “The Politics of Women’s Liberation”, say, and, some books on feminist thought.

also

the association I immediately made when I read the title (I could be wrong) is between feminism and fisting.

well interesting, very interesting. The association I immediately made was by way of analogy with politics and politicking, and I think that probably does get at what it’s about. Your rather bizarre “fisting” construal probably links with your equally bizarre

When the fat, mannish dykes who do run around calling themselves “Feminist” very loudly and constantly concede that my decision to groom and dress myself as a 21st century professional woman is every bit as valid a choice as their decision to become stereotypical jailhouse bulldaggers.
which simply bears no relation to reality and suggests to me that you are insecure. I’m not normally, I add, given to psychoanalysing people; I think it’s a rather unpleasant thing to do. But in your case, I don’t feel too bad about doing it.

Comment by jayanne — July 6, 2005 @ 6:23 pm

In other words, I will call myself a feminist when those mannabees are as proud of and joyful in their womanhood as I am in mine.

You don’t sound proud and joyful.

Just an observation.

ps: I wear lipGLOSS (not lipstick) and pluck, don’t wax, my eyebrows. So - is there a quiz somewhere that will tell me how much of a feminist I am? Does it have anything to do with the size of my fist?

Comment by emily — July 6, 2005 @ 8:13 pm

Hmmm… I’m a size zero and a feminist. God, I am such a cow! I need to diet immediately!

But please, get it straight. No one thanks feminists for getting a degree for them. But maybe, just maybe, some of us appreciate that there are no longer legal barriers to us doing so.

I mean, duh. Does anyone really get a degree just to benefit The Sisterhood? Puh-leeze. And if so, could you provide some statistics supporting your claim? Sorry, personal anecdotes are statistically insignificant. But I’m sure that you, as an educated woman, already knew that.

Also, why do all women have to be the same? I am pretty (and probably slimmer than you), yet I still think fat, hairy-legged women should have RIGHTS. If they want to call themselves feminists, why should I care? It’s the first fucking amendment. People “embrace womanhood” in different ways. If you want to discount individuality and live in a world where all women are just like *you*, then you should go live with the commies or something.

If you believe in equality, then BY DEFINITION you’re a feminist. If you have a problem with that, you need to contact Webster’s Dictionary and tell them they have the wrong definition. The rest of us don’t actually have authority in that matter.

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 10:13 pm

Hey Jessica, I’m a college-educated, self-supporting, homeowning single woman who’s been making my own goddam way in the world since I was 17 years old.

You make self-reliance sound so horrible. I’m glad the trust fund means that I don’t ever have to worry about “making my own goddamn way in the world.” yuck!

But since you’re clearly not a mannish dyke, maybe we could get together sometime, have some wine, and you know… FUCK LIKE PIGS BEING SLAUGHTERED BY A CHAINSAW. I’m rich if that helps.

Comment by Jedmunds — July 6, 2005 @ 10:16 pm

Strange how many of the commenters have found it necessary to attack my looks…

Comment by The Goddess — July 6, 2005 @ 10:17 pm

Actually, rereading the thread, it’s a little strange that you think anyone attacked your looks.

Comment by Jedmunds — July 6, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

Did I attack your looks? The simple fact is that I’m a size 0 (sometimes 00) so the probability that I’m slimmer is around .99.

Is that offensive? Perhaps, if your self-esteem depends on how thin you are. Mine doesn’t.

Most people consider comments like “fat, mannish dyke” with “hairy legs” as being greater attacks on looks, rather than “a size-zero woman is probably thinner than you”. But then I’m sure you’ve heard about those people living in glass houses.

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 10:41 pm

Hey… I’m still waiting for those statistics!

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 6, 2005 @ 10:48 pm

Statistics Schmatistics. Boooring.

Why do “mannish dykes” get so offended by being called “mannish dykes” anyway? I mean jeez.

Now don’t you have a toilet somewhere you should be puking in, little miss Karen Carpenter?

Comment by Jedmunds — July 6, 2005 @ 10:58 pm

Nope, sorry Jed. I’m naturally this skinny. I eat like a pig with no need to puke. Although the drummer reference was pretty funny. But I’m more of a rock/metal type chick. I’d probably scare Ms. Carpenter.

Notice I just said “most people” find it offensive — I doubt the real mannish dykes care. If someone called me a mannish dyke, I’d flash a boobie and laugh. (Because I’m not so skinny that I don’t have boobies! Heheh.)

But now that I think of it… if you wax your brows, doesn’t that mean you have unwanted facial hair? And isn’t facial hair kind of, um, mannish?

It’s just a question. I’m not attacking anyone’s looks.

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 7, 2005 @ 12:09 am

None of the masculine feminists I have encountered criticize women for looking feminine and while I’m sure that such people exist, I think it’s clear that they don’t make up the majority of feminists.
Also, your comments about butch women are ridiculous. Did it ever cross your mind that women who present in a “masculine” way might be doing it because they like the way it looks and feels, not because they want to be men? They’re not any less “proud and joyful in their womanhood;” their womanhood is different from yours, that’s all.

Comment by Amanda — July 7, 2005 @ 5:28 am

Oh my god. Are you serious? Where does this historical evidence about Artemisia (Gentileschi, I’m sorry for the confusion) exist? She was tortured and still wouldn’t back down on saying she was raped! And even made a bawdy joke about the thumb screws screwing her just like Tassi did.

And Cleopatra was called a whore by Romans. Seriously. I promise. They hated her for ensorcelling two of their generals and her gender made it easy to attack her for the stereotype of a weak and lascivious foreigner. You are right about Mary, I was talking more about Medieval interpretations of her character. As for Heloise, if you don’t consider being put into a convent and losing your son a punishment (I’ll admit castration is unfortunate!), I don’t know how to respond. Her letters to Abelard are filled with longing for the sexual relationship they had that is now denied to them. It is easy to point to exceptions, to the few remarkable women who managed to grab power and hold on to it. But their fame stems at least partly from their rarity.

With regards to Elizabeth, I agree that many kings and queens struggled with religious questions. BUT, she and Mary before her were at a serious disadvantage because of their gender. Liz was clever, and was able to eventually use it as a tool, but during the early part of her reign it severally handicapped her ability to deal effectively with problems in her kingdom. That was the point I was trying to make, sorry if it didn’t come across.

I realize now that I’m not sure why I’m writing this. I obviously can’t convince you. Perhaps I can suggest an experiment. Buy a best poetry book or art and check out the percentage of women in each before the 20th Century. Have you read Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own?” Her imagined case of Judith Shakespeare is particularly compelling. I guess why I feel I had to respond is simply that it is heartbreaking to see a person such as yourself who has clearly benefitted from the educational opportunities available disparage the types of women who helped you to attain them. This doesn’t mean that I don’t value the strength and intelligence that you needed to succeed, but nor does it mean that you shouldn’t feel some shred of gratitude that the path was at least set for you by previous women.

That’s all.

Comment by Katherine — July 7, 2005 @ 6:44 am

Since I’ve responded to this on my own blog already I don’t want to repeat myself here, but I just wanted to say that the name Feministing wasn’t chosen because it rhymed or sounded like ‘fisting’, though that’s a common misconception. I wanted to make ‘feminist’ an active verb…the fact that the name reminds people of ‘fisting’ is just a happy coincidence.

Comment by Jessica — July 7, 2005 @ 7:48 am

So THAT’S where the name comes from. Thanks Jessica, I always wondered. I’ve been trying to think of other ways to verbalize the noun…none of them sound very good.

Comment by The Goddess — July 7, 2005 @ 7:51 am

Notice I just said “most people” find it offensive — I doubt the real mannish dykes care. If someone called me a mannish dyke, I’d flash a boobie and laugh. (Because I’m not so skinny that I don’t have boobies! Heheh.)

That bit’s going in the file.

Comment by Jedmunds — July 7, 2005 @ 8:34 am

…Argh…estrogen….overdose…. *hack* *wheeze*

Comment by smottical — July 7, 2005 @ 9:09 am

Well, I pluck my brows, wear makeup, skirts, nylons and pumps. And I’m a feminist.

You see, I didn’t have hordes of fat ugly dykes scaring me off. The heavy lesbians (and the heavy straight chicks) that I have met have been nothing but nice. We swap books. We hang out and discuss and argue politics over coffee. They don’t throw explicatives like slut and whore at me, which many anti-fems do while decrying the alleged sexophobia of feminists.

Oddly enough, the common comeback I get from anti-fems on my blog and in any online forum is similar to your rant–I must be a fugly fat dyke. A hairy man-hater. (And I’m sure most of the folks who throw that non-sequitor out there are doubles of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie.)

Here’s another newsflash–I got my BA and my Masters. I own my own home. I’ve lived overseas and travelled extensively. I’m bilingual.

And I’ll thank feminism for a lot of it. If it weren’t for the feminists, the cute ones, the “ugly” ones, the angry ones, and the nice ones, I wouldn’t be able to own property. I wouldn’t be able to go to school. It would be more difficult for me to get a job besides those designated for “women”. I wouldn’t be able to vote. I wouldn’t have any support if I was attacked. I wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades of getting a cop to hear me out unless the assailant was black and jumped out of the bushes. I would be discouraged from school, travel, and all of those opportunities because men don’t like smart women, and there are better things for me to do anyway. Because it’s dangerous out there for women.

So I’ll thank feminism. And I won’t trash anyone for not being pretty enough, thanks. If that’s the best you’ve got, it ain’t much.

Comment by Sheelzebub — July 7, 2005 @ 9:10 am

Smottical - very clever. I’m assuming you are a man. you have oestrogen too. Go and read Natalie Angier ‘Woman: An Intimate Geography’ on oestrogen. You remind me of a schoolboy who thinks it’s funny to twang girls’ bra straps.

On the ‘fat, mannish dykes’ front - some mannish dykes are rather beautiful. Some fat mannish dykes are beautiful, just as some fat women are beautiful. That’s just the way it goes; beauty is in the eye of the beholder (although I agree this is not necessarily the case in job interviews etc) The idea that dykes hate femmes is ridiculous given that dykes often have relationships with femmes. they’re not necessarily anti make-up, skirts etc, it’s just not what makes them happy personally.

Also, your idea that lesbians and/or feminists tend to be intolerant towards women with conformative appearances (waxed and plucked and cosmeticked) forgets that as a rule lesbians and feminists start out by conforming, albeit unhappily, and then find that dressing as a butch or not shaving or whatever suits them better and makes them happier. it takes a lot of self-awareness and self-knowledge to get to that point; and people with self-knowledge aren’t usually the ones who make catty and insecure comments on other people’s appearance. There will always be some radicals who want to take a hard line on it, but I think you’re misrepresenting most lesbians/feminists/dykes.

Try not shaving or wearing make-up or something for a week - it doesn’t make you a ‘mannabee’. It doesn’t make you full of hate towards people who do shave or wear make-up.

Comment by Polly — July 7, 2005 @ 10:56 am

Okay, okay, I’ll actually make a coherent response here. I am a young lesbian, belonging to the generation following the Goddess. The reason I refuse to directly label myself as a feminist is pretty much illustrated through this whole thread. It’s not because it’s a bad word, or a word that shouldn’t be used or valued - it’s because everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a feminist. And by and large, the stereotypes that people append to the term are not ones that I want to be identified with. They are things like militant, dykeish, activist, hairy… whatever. Let’s face it - many of the stereotypes about feminism are not terribly positive.

Yes, if I chose I could subscribe to the term and then spend countless hours arguing on boards like these (or with people in person) about what it means to me and why I chose it. However, when it really comes down to it, I’d rather be off enjoying myself with a beautiful woman while silently thanking the goddesses of “feminism” that have come before me to allow my sexuality to be as open as it is.

I see this as fundamentally a linguistic problem more than anything else. Dictionary definitions really don’t allow for the variety of human experience and interpretation. So when it comes down to it I would rather defend my views than defend a term that is nebulous in defining them.

Comment by smottical — July 7, 2005 @ 11:09 am

Oh, and I am not a man. Yes I will acknowledge that my comment was immature… but geez, a little humor, folks?

Comment by smottical — July 7, 2005 @ 11:11 am

I also don’t identify myself as a feminist, not because I disagree with the central tenets of feminism or because I don’t wish to acknowledge what feminists have accomplished, but for the same reasons Smottical gives.

An observation on a much earlier part of the discussion: Katherine asked us to imagine what a number of strong, powerful, accomplished women could have done if they lived in more enlightened times. Perhaps part of what made these women strong and what should be admired about them was their ability to survive adversity and accomplish what they were able to accomplish. I think the more interesting question is what could have been accomplished by women who lacked the inclination or strength to successfully overcome their circumstances, who were limited to fulfilling the roles society expected of them.

Comment by Liz — July 7, 2005 @ 11:52 am

‘Let’s face it - many of the stereotypes about feminism are not terribly positive.’

Nor for that matter are the stereotypes about being a lesbian, a woman, young, black… You can’t escape prejudice by just refusing to recognise aspects of your identity. I kind of get your point about the feminist tag sometimes seeming more hassle than it’s worth, but I really enjoy improving the rep of feminism by being open about being one to people who have warmed to me anyway. This is a good way of letting people know that feminism is not all about confrontation and aggression.

I think to be a feminist you don’t have to fulfil a specific set of criteria about hairiness or hating men or whatever, you just have to be open to the possibility that the current gender politics situation could be improved upon, and to decide to do what you can in your small way to make things better. That could be through activism or it could be through just trying not to be acrimonious toward other women.

Comment by Polly — July 7, 2005 @ 11:58 am

Do you really need the label to be committed to making things better? I would hope not.

Ironically, in light of your comment about feminism not being about confrontation and aggression, that’s largely what I’ve seen here and the conversation on Feministing.com.

Comment by Liz — July 7, 2005 @ 12:47 pm

I find the posts in the comments sections of both this blog and Feministing a fascinating read and study in net behavior. The Goddess posts a rather scathing/inflammatory rant about Valenti’s comments in an article about feminism, and suddenly the “sisterhood” is up in arms. Some of the labels/attributes they applied to her: “Dolly Parton”; “homophobe”; “absolutely zero analytical ability”; “special”; and my personaly favorite, “unstable.” Not to mention the insinuations that she must hate women, was the fat girl in high school, or that a poster not immediately attacking The Goddess must be male. The last is particularly amusing since a simple click of the mouse would have shown that Smottical is neither male nor straight.

Such wonderfully classic Internet behavior, especially from individuals who profess to rail against stereotypes.

Now then, something constructive. Feminism is a label rejected by many who might otherwise identify with it because it has way too much baggage, in my opinion. The posts and responses to this discussion are a pretty clear indication of that. There are as many nuanced views on feminism as there are books on the subject, and probably twice as many stereotypes. As I said, too much baggage.

I don’t consider myself a “feminist” not just because the label both means too much and too little at the same time, but also because I feel it has become rather gynocentric. Should not the ultimate outcome be equality of the sexes, as opposed to one-upmanship? Empowering women is great and a worthy goal, but framing the desires of the feminist movement strictly by what the “sisterhood” wants seems counterproductive. What about what is best for society, and not simply what is best for one sex?

Feminism isn’t dead, nor am I making some claim to that effect. However, until it either sheds itself of what the public views as negative stereotypes or (better yet) transforms those stereotypes into something benign or even positive, feminism will continue to lose adherents. It’s Joe and Jane Average you need to reach, not the choir.

Comment by Citizen — July 7, 2005 @ 1:00 pm

Um. . .if you want a taste of confrontation and agression, Liz, then check out the Goddesses’ original comment:

“In other words, I will call myself a feminist when those mannabees are as proud of and joyful in their womanhood as I am in mine.

Until then, fuck off and take your hairy legs with you. I have a career to advance, a PhD to earn, tile to grout and eyebrows to wax. I need neither man’s nor feminist’s help to do any of it.”

Nope, not confrontational or agressive at all. Certainly not catty and immature.

If that’s the best anti-feminists can do, I’ll hang out with the. . .what was it? Fat ugly dykes? ‘Kay. I’ll hang with them in all of my leg-shaven glory. Not only are they proud in their womanhood, they have better things to do than engage in “I’m prettier than you” high school tantrums.

Comment by Sheelzebub — July 7, 2005 @ 1:35 pm

I wasn’t defending the original post in making that comment. I was simply pointing out that the variety of responses the post has elicited in no way constitute a constructive discourse. They do nothing to win adherents to your cause. Instead of name-calling in response, perhaps you should calm down and listen to what some of the people who are not feminists (but are certainly not anti-feminist) have said above.

Comment by Liz — July 7, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

I haven’t called her any names; I’ve merely called her on her rant. I’m perfectly calm–I think it’s the Goddess who needs some calming down.

In fact, your lecture to me is especially odd considering the one who did the name calling (”bulldagger” and “dyke”–insulting and homophobic all at the same time) is the one who wrote the original post. Calling people bulldaggers and dykes, misrepresenting what they say, calling them ugly, and telling them to fuck off is not the way for a constructive argument. I did leave a rational response, though I notice no one from the “other” side answered it.

And you know, Liz, you can’t watch someone throw a grenade out there and then bemoan the reaction. Well, you can, but it’s rather disingenuous.

Comment by Sheelzebub — July 7, 2005 @ 2:37 pm

Yeah ladies. talk nice. Win adherents with honey. not vinegar. That’s what my mommy taught me.

Comment by Jedmunds — July 7, 2005 @ 2:40 pm

I don’t like feminists because daddy told me feminists were meanies.

Boo.

Comment by Jedmunds — July 7, 2005 @ 2:42 pm

“…framing the desires of the feminist movement strictly by what the “sisterhood” wants seems counterproductive.”

Okay, I’ll ask again. Can you provide some evidence that that’s what the feminist movement is about? Anyone? If feminists truly want “one-upmanship” then please, show me where that is stated in the feminist credo.

I can consider rational arguments, but you’ve got to provide some objective evidence to support your claims.

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 7, 2005 @ 3:16 pm

Sorry Liz, but if someone is aggressive toward me and tells me fuck off, I’m not going to be all sweet about it.

There is a sect of pacifist/hippie feminism, but I’m not a part of it. If someone attacks me, I’m not going to roll over for them.

Comment by Redneck Feminist — July 7, 2005 @ 3:23 pm

‘a poster not immediately attacking The Goddess must be male. The last is particularly amusing since a simple click of the mouse would have shown that Smottical is neither male nor straight.’
Citizen - Smottical was making some kind of ‘handbags at dawn’ comment that I found neither funny nor helpful. I assumed Smottical was a man because it is typically men who make such comments. I am glad that you at least found some humour in my post.

I’m not going to bother following this thread anymore, partly because I find some of the materialist rhetoric ‘i own my own house and grew up eating gravel’ alienating and repugnant, and partly because I have spent most of today seeing if any of my friends have been blown to pieces in London, which makes arguing about feminist labels and armpit hair a tad redundant.

Comment by Polly — July 7, 2005 @ 3:48 pm