![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why feminism?
Aug. 29th, 2007 11:33 pmBefore you all think I've been abducted by aliens, I'm not questioning the need for or aims of feminism in general (and if you do, why are you reading this?). What I'm wondering about is the label.
Why do we call ourselves "feminists"? I was having a wee wander through one well-known feminist journal due to some discussion on my flist, and found her rant against those people who call themselves "equalists", basically accusing them of copping out. Actually, I somewhat sympathise with that POV - I mean, "feminist" is the common label for those who believe in equality among the sexes, and I do wonder why people avoid it.
But one (young) commenter said that her interpretation of "feminist" was that we were trying to recreate some kind of matriarchy, which is why she went along with the "equalist" label. And, to be frank, when I first heard the "feminism" word, I thought pretty much exactly the same thing. I had to be educated as to its meaning.
I dislike terms that appear to say something, but actually mean something else. I called myself a lesbian-feminist for a couple of years, before realising that it was actually an outgrowth of the cultural feminist philosophy... and that concept has nothing at all to do with art. Perhaps it's the fact I'm a butch dyke, but to be honest, saying that all women as a group have intrinsic (and superior) qualities (as the difference feminists say as well) that no man could ever have really gets my hair standing on end. I hate that POV. I'm a bit allergic to fundamentalism, of any brand.
I called myself an anarcha-feminist before I realised that it didn't just mean a feminist with anarchist philosophical underpinnings - apparently one also needs to subscribe to the radical feminist assertion that oppression on a gender basis was the first (and most crucial) form of hierarchical oppression. I'm not sure about that. At all. I mean, who knows? The Wikipedia article makes this statement: "Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class struggle". I don't, in the classical sense. I think the Marxist notion of class struggle needs major reworking - think globalisation, for a start.
I suppose the little sub-label that best fits me is "sex-positive feminist", but I really really really dislike the dichotomy that it pulls up by implicitly labelling other feminists as "sex-negative" (although, actually, I do think some very few prominent feminists are sex-negative... but there are much fewer of them than there are sex-negative wankers who currently have political power). I dislike reactionary labels.
So, I don't have a satisfactory feminist sub-set label to put to myself. It brought me back to the idea, then, of why do we call ourselves "feminists"? I'm against sexism - I do not believe that anyone should be pigeonholed in any way due to their gender. I'm also against racism, but I don't call myself a "blackist" (well, I don't qualify, even if such a term existed). I'm against homophobia, but I don't call myself a "queerist". Sure, it's good to have identity pride, but I don't think it's necessary to have it to be against any of the -isms or -phobias that mitigate against fair treatment of any subculture.
I realise the feminist label has a historical context, going back to the suffrage movement. But other than that, why use it? It doesn't clearly represent the concept that it's supposedly for - well, unless you are a cultural/difference feminist. It tends to exclude men (or those who are in-between). And no, I'm not saying wah wah wah, those poor oppressed men - but while feminism can be seen to be a woman's phenomenon only, it can be hard for those who aren't women to see its relevance to them. Sure, unfair treatment of women is waaaay more pernicious than for men, but sexism fucks us all up.
By using the label, are we just recognising the fact that the balance needs to be weighted more to the female side to get to a point where the inequities stop? I dunno, I think I'd rather have a term that implies that the weight be removed from the privileged (male) side. While I agree that women need more privilege, that's just the means of achieving the desired (equality) outcome, not the aim itself.
So, thoughts, anyone? I'm not going to suddenly renounce the label - it is the accepted shorthand for my beliefs in that area, and well, I do have identity pride there too, heh - and I'm not quite so silly as to assume a label can encompass an entire belief set. But I'd like to hear people's ruminations on the benefits and drawbacks of this particular label.
Why do we call ourselves "feminists"? I was having a wee wander through one well-known feminist journal due to some discussion on my flist, and found her rant against those people who call themselves "equalists", basically accusing them of copping out. Actually, I somewhat sympathise with that POV - I mean, "feminist" is the common label for those who believe in equality among the sexes, and I do wonder why people avoid it.
But one (young) commenter said that her interpretation of "feminist" was that we were trying to recreate some kind of matriarchy, which is why she went along with the "equalist" label. And, to be frank, when I first heard the "feminism" word, I thought pretty much exactly the same thing. I had to be educated as to its meaning.
I dislike terms that appear to say something, but actually mean something else. I called myself a lesbian-feminist for a couple of years, before realising that it was actually an outgrowth of the cultural feminist philosophy... and that concept has nothing at all to do with art. Perhaps it's the fact I'm a butch dyke, but to be honest, saying that all women as a group have intrinsic (and superior) qualities (as the difference feminists say as well) that no man could ever have really gets my hair standing on end. I hate that POV. I'm a bit allergic to fundamentalism, of any brand.
I called myself an anarcha-feminist before I realised that it didn't just mean a feminist with anarchist philosophical underpinnings - apparently one also needs to subscribe to the radical feminist assertion that oppression on a gender basis was the first (and most crucial) form of hierarchical oppression. I'm not sure about that. At all. I mean, who knows? The Wikipedia article makes this statement: "Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class struggle". I don't, in the classical sense. I think the Marxist notion of class struggle needs major reworking - think globalisation, for a start.
I suppose the little sub-label that best fits me is "sex-positive feminist", but I really really really dislike the dichotomy that it pulls up by implicitly labelling other feminists as "sex-negative" (although, actually, I do think some very few prominent feminists are sex-negative... but there are much fewer of them than there are sex-negative wankers who currently have political power). I dislike reactionary labels.
So, I don't have a satisfactory feminist sub-set label to put to myself. It brought me back to the idea, then, of why do we call ourselves "feminists"? I'm against sexism - I do not believe that anyone should be pigeonholed in any way due to their gender. I'm also against racism, but I don't call myself a "blackist" (well, I don't qualify, even if such a term existed). I'm against homophobia, but I don't call myself a "queerist". Sure, it's good to have identity pride, but I don't think it's necessary to have it to be against any of the -isms or -phobias that mitigate against fair treatment of any subculture.
I realise the feminist label has a historical context, going back to the suffrage movement. But other than that, why use it? It doesn't clearly represent the concept that it's supposedly for - well, unless you are a cultural/difference feminist. It tends to exclude men (or those who are in-between). And no, I'm not saying wah wah wah, those poor oppressed men - but while feminism can be seen to be a woman's phenomenon only, it can be hard for those who aren't women to see its relevance to them. Sure, unfair treatment of women is waaaay more pernicious than for men, but sexism fucks us all up.
By using the label, are we just recognising the fact that the balance needs to be weighted more to the female side to get to a point where the inequities stop? I dunno, I think I'd rather have a term that implies that the weight be removed from the privileged (male) side. While I agree that women need more privilege, that's just the means of achieving the desired (equality) outcome, not the aim itself.
So, thoughts, anyone? I'm not going to suddenly renounce the label - it is the accepted shorthand for my beliefs in that area, and well, I do have identity pride there too, heh - and I'm not quite so silly as to assume a label can encompass an entire belief set. But I'd like to hear people's ruminations on the benefits and drawbacks of this particular label.
