Why feminism isn’t for everybody

[blake 3:17]

Why feminism isn’t for everybody
Posted by dispatch under gender/sexuality , briarpatch articles

By Becky Ellis
Briarpatch Magazine
March 2007

FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY, THE mantra goes. This slogan, inspired by bell hooks’ book of the same name, is widely used to envision a feminist movement that is open to all people and that, in theory, recognizes the real diversity among feminists and among women more generally.

What could be wrong with that?



But the closer one looks at how this idea is actually being used, the more one starts to wonder: is feminism being stripped of its challenging and confrontational aspects in favour of a new, de-politicized feminist identity that is incapable of addressing ongoing inequalities?

At the University of Western Ontario, for instance, a recent essay in The F Word, a zine put out by the Women’s Issues Network (WIN) collective, celebrated feminism as being “for everybody,” including the author, a member of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. According to the author, Kathryn Mitrow, feminism is about “identity and fluidity … and gender equity.” So is feminism for everybody? Or more to the point, should it be for everybody? Or does this idea of a super-inclusive feminism simply lead to the disarming of the movement at the expense of actual, concrete gains for women?

Certainly, no one particular political ideology or strategy can lay an exclusive claim to the word feminist. Feminism is a diverse, heterogeneous movement in terms of membership, ideology, tactics and strategy. There is no single definition of what feminism is, nor is there a unified feminist movement. So, in one sense, yes, anyone advocating equal rights for women could claim to be a feminist. This seems to make it plausible to say, as the F Word article does, that feminism is “for the frat boy. It is for the cheerleader, the Master’s student in feminist theory, and, yes, it is for the card-carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

Full article. (http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=399)

[leftisttransgirl]

I don't think a conservative can ever be a feminist.


You have to oppress a whole bunch of women in order to be a conservative, killing any chances of substantial equality between the sexes.

[Cheung Mo]

90% of the males I know are closer to being feminists than Margaret Thatcher is.

[Tower of Bebel]

feminism = socialism. only a worker's party, if it has to be done by politics, can represent women.

[TC]

Feminism, which is to say the ideological position that men and women ought to be treated and regarded as equals in society and in all social interaction, is for everyone and i think the majority of people in industrialized societies adhere to this view.


Female identitarianism, the set of beliefs that mystify womenhood hold that women do or ought to have a particular social/cultural/spiritual/sexual/bodily/religious etc status, set of concerns and feelings, is clearly not for everyone as it tends to identify a standard of 'real women' or 'liberated women' that actual women often don't fit and don't want to fit. This is problematic as it almost always misrepresents itself as "feminist." Telling women to stop shaving, love their bodies, sit through a university production of 'the vagina monologues', experiment with lesbianism and nature friendly tampon-alternatives while worshiping the moon goddess and feel personally victimized by pornography and size zero models despite neither being in the porn or fashion industries, for instance, has nothing to do with feminism in the proper sense of the word, and yes that clearly isn't for everyone.


and female chauvinism which claims to be "feminism" is clearly also not for everyone...or really for anyone except a small group of bitter people.


personally, i don't think an actual conservative can be a feminist because the conservative agenda is one of maintaining the patriarchal family and the male chauvinist and parental chauvinist values that support it, but a libertarian member of a conservative party can be.

[coda]

This one's easy. I think anybody is a feminist who believes in woman's full economic and social equality to that of men.

[pandora]

Feminism is the radical notion of women's equality of men.

This is a reality. There little biological difference between the two.

As soon as people can remove hormones from influencing political decisions, we will have the clarity for women's liberation. Until then there will be more garbage.

Sex is for the bedroom, or outdoors, not the parliament.

As women and men are both human beings, of course their are humans with all sorts of bizarre ideas, so some women are so influenced by context to question their own rights, but considering the amount of movement in terms of rights for women in the last 100 years, it is obvious that feminism will continue to grow.

For the simple fact that all people wish to be free and happy.

[TC]

Feminism is the radical notion of women's equality of men.

Give feminism and society a little credit, that notion ceased to be radical half a century ago. To reject the original tenets of feminism today amounts to right-wing radicalism.



This is a reality. There little biological difference between the two.

err really the relevant difference *is* the biological one and i don't see any benefit in trying to deny it. Its rather a fallacy to think that biology determines or ought to determine socio-political role or psychology as people are complex enough organisms that our behavior is far more influenced by our perception of personal and social interests.



As soon as people can remove hormones from influencing political decisions, we will have the clarity for women's liberation. Until then there will be more garbage.


??? so now biology is important? Your sloganeering makes very little sense, hormones and for that matter conceptual clarity have nothing to do with it, the economy does.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 18, 2007 09:16 am
90% of the males I know are closer to being feminists than Margaret Thatcher is.
Surely Everybody is closer to being feminist than Thatcher was. When she got in too power she disbanded th GLC which was actively feminist. She apparntly took male hormonal supplements. How unfeminist can you get.

[TC]

Originally posted by seraphim+March 20, 2007 12:41 pm--> (seraphim @ March 20, 2007 12:41 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 18, 2007 09:16 am
90% of the males I know are closer to being feminists than Margaret Thatcher is.
Surely Everybody is closer to being feminist than Thatcher was. When she got in too power she disbanded th GLC which was actively feminist. She apparntly took male hormonal supplements. How unfeminist can you get. [/b]
there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate Margaret Thatcher, because she's as "unfeminist" as you can get is not one of them. I'd think you could get more unfeminist by thinking that women shouldn't lead countries and armies or have independent careers.



Its pretty fucking obvious that the only reason why Margaret Thatcher even came up in this discussion was because she's a woman, a powerful famous rightwing woman, and that strikes me as pretty unfeminist. Why does Margaret Thatcher, whose main "contributions" have nothing particularly to do with feminism, come up whereas Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc don't?

Go after Thatcher for repression of British trade unions not for being a woman ;)