It’s not cool and fun and sexy
Meghan Murphy has a sockdolager of a piece explaining that no feminism isn’t anything and everything but rather is something particular and substantive, so no you’re not a feminist just because you wear stilettos or have a platinum card. She offers 9 items that actually do make you a feminist, a better feminist than people who lack them.
First is being a woman.
There are male feminists of course, and since we need all the feminists we can get, maybe especially among men, I think it’s important to emphasize that, but her point is that men don’t fully get the female experience.
2) Understanding that feminism is not a feeling or an identity, but a political movement
And a set of ideas and claims.
If you think that objectifying women or street harassment or male entitlement or gender stereotypes or sexualizing violence against women is good and ok, you aren’t a feminist. Taking a selfie orgetting married or wearing stilettos or making a bunch of money does not equate to feminism (yet feminists are allowed to do these things! See how that works?) because feminism isn’t about you as an individual feeling personally “good” or empowered in the moment. You can feel empowered, but that doesn’t necessary produce feminism. Similarly, feeling “good” [does] not equate to empowerment. Empowerment, in the context of feminism, means social empowerment for a group of marginalized people (in this case, women). This is why, for example, posing nude and feeling sexy in a fashion or porn magazine might feel good for the individual doing it (they will receive positive reinforcement, feel attractive, profit financially, etc.) but does not constitute “empowerment” as it does not lift up women as a class.
Number 3, stop being anti-intellectual.
There is no activism without ideology. Ideology is the body of ideas that frames a political movement. We need that, otherwise how the fuck do we know what we’re doing? (What’s that? We’re just taking selfies and shouting intersectionality at each other on Twitter? Good then. Fuck ideology. Fuck movements. Fuck yeah.)
That. That’s why I abruptly jumped off the train between stops. I’m not interested in a politics that’s all formulas – check your privilege! intent isn’t magic! my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit! – and no thought. Formulas are ok for some limited purposes, but that’s all. Shouting intersectionality at each other on Twitter doesn’t cut it.
4 is about that too.
5) Not being ageist
At what point did ageism become acceptable in feminism? Oh right. The third wave… Ok, so we understand that rebellious teenagers want to “Your not my real mom!” *slams door* their elders, but we are not rebellious teenagers. We are adults. And if you are a feminist it is unacceptable to make “second wave” an insult. That is some woman-hating, anti-feminist, ageist garbage and if you want to pull that shit, congratulations, you’re doing patriarchy. Keep your ignorance and keep perpetuating sexist notions that women who are no longer youthful are silly, old-fashioned, prudish fuddy-duddies, clutching their pearls all the way to the old folks home, where they can stick to Bingo, but know that you’re no feminist. Older movement women know more than you do and we aren’t going anywhere without them.
Cough cough cough.
There are a lot of “feminists” out there who decidedly do make “second wave” an insult – usually while shouting something that second wavers originated 45 years ago. We’re not your mommies, we’re not Miss Marple, we’re not old dears with bundles of knitting. Get a fucking clue.
6) Not accusing feminists of hating sex and men like it’s a bad thing
Women are allowed to hate men and sex. Hating men and sex is perfectly natural. Men and sex with men has been a source of trauma for countless women, over centuries. It is also perfectly natural to love particular men and to enjoy having sex. None of these realities are things that should be used by feminists to insult, attack, or dismiss other feminists. By accusing feminists who challenge male violence of “hating sex” or “hating men” you are reinforcing heteronormative garbage and feeding into stereotypes that say feminists are just angry because they aren’t getting fucked enough. These tropes are connected to rape culture — it is the idea that men can fuck women into passivity or fuck them straight. It is the idea that only fuckable women are “real” women. It is the idea that women need men in order to be whole beings and to matter — that they only exist in relation to men. These are anti-feminist ideas.
And 7, 8, 9, too. Read it all, then read it again.
Woo hoo! FUCK YEAH!
And as a bonus, I am now acquainted with the term ‘sockdolager’. Thank you Ophelia.
Well, some of us are old with bundles of knitting, but I can assure you that there’s a considerable amount of strategic plotting and anger that happens during the making of a pair of socks or a sweater.
A feminist plotter with bundles of knitting is very different from an old dear with bundles of knitting.
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
5) yes
6) yes
7) yes
8) yes
9) yes
Thank you for this reference.
I saw that you had retweeted this article and just finished reading it a second time. This is a spot-on, beautifully written, and perfectly stated piece, top to bottom.
You get the feeling the Jason Thibeaults and Alex Gabriels and Stephanie Zvans of the world will read this slackjawed, in disbelief and thoroughly unable to comprehend the many ways it leaves their smug assholishness broken down on the side of the road.
Hey! Miss Marple was sharp as a tack, bold and outspoken for her time. She traveled alone, and was an amateur detective respected and consulted by the police. She was also created, evidently, out of respect for the perspectives of older and unmarried women:
What SC said about Miss Marple. Also she was sneaky and used the misperception of the harmless little old lady to her advantage.
In the current context, this comes across as faintly dog-whistley. Barring other information, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t intentional, but it was an unfortunate place to take the analogy (even setting aside for the moment that Marx was “born bougie,” as were Engels and Bakunin – Kropotkin was born a prince).
(And it should be “proletarian identity.” /professor)
Great article. Frankly, the people I personally fear the most, after gun toting intellectually challenged fascist theocrats, are little old ladies with knitting needles. For quite different reasons mind.
SC@9. Good point.
“Feminists do not hate women’s naked bodies. We love women’s bodies. We have them. We use them every day for things like eating and walking and snuggling with puppies. We’d love it if those bodies belonged to us, for our own use and enjoyment, rather than to the male population.”
Excellent. As is the whole thing.
I see others have mentioned that Miss Marple was often Agatha Christie sneaking in subversiveness. I would particularly recommend “M or N” for Agatha Christie doing feminism– Miss Marple mentors Tuppence, who became a bit of an alcoholic struggling with depression due to being relegated to housewife status when she’s a natural adventurer. The women solve a mystery together, of course, but it’s very much about how women felt about being pushed out of work after soldiers came home.
Of course the most famous woman with knitting in literature would be Madame Defarge.
Fair points about Miss Marple. I meant her image, really, the one she used to make it possible to observe people without alarming them and so on.
But at the same time, she’s not all that subversive…at least not in the tv versions; I’ve long forgotten the actual books.
SC @ 9 – or maybe it’s not so much “dog whistley” as it is asking a genuine question. “In the current context” includes a lot of ferocious policing of that question, like calling it a dog whistle.
Alright, I think I’m done here.
Oh darn, shunned again.
All of this is well written, poignant, and often going to the heart of the matter. I’m a bit lost … but just a little bit.
As I understand, this is a declaration that feminism is one of the ‘identity movements’. The most basic unifying principle is not some cause (or ideas, or claims), but one’s identity. Ok. Fine. I see.
The juxtaposition of the following three fragments …
… moved me truly, madly, deeply. How about a musical: imagine seven Misses Marple sitting in a semicircle, knitting and plotting. There is a bunch of men dressed in schoolgirl uniforms, dancing shyly in front of them and pleading: “oh, not allies, please! Choke us, pull our hair, dehumanize us … only not allies, please, pretty please! We will be good, we promise! We do not deserve such a fate!”
But seven Misses Marple raise their heads and sing back to the ominous tune of “Summer Nights”:
Yes you do, yes you do,
Hatred comes at first sight.
Yes you do, yes you do,
Save us time or we’ll bite.
Argh!
Hmm, but who is going to write such a musical? Certainly not me. Not you either. Maybe the Horde and the Slymepit on one of their top secret joint sessions?
(Sorry, I’m a bad commenter. Peccavi.)
Just so you all know, this thread drove me to watch 3 episodes of Geraldine McEwen’s Miss Marple.
It was awesome.
The most recent version of Miss Marple on TV scares me a little. The gleam in her eyes: she has a ruthless streak that people miss because they are stupid about old ladies.
That’s probably Geraldine McEwan. She’s got quite the ruthless gleam in her eyes. She’s not how I picture Miss Marple and the writers of the series took liberties with Jane’s backstory but I quite like the series all the same.
I’m a shameless Agatha Christie fan though. Give me a story that starts with an unexplained death in an English country house and I’m hooked. I wish there was a decent Tommy and Tuppence Beresford series. The people who cast David Walliams as Tommy need their eyes checked.
I recently discovered an Australian series, Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries. Brilliant with a capital B.
Since we can all think of anti-feminist women and ideologically feminist men, being a woman is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being an feminist. I really don’t see what advantage there is in “You can do all this without calling yourself a feminist.” — should women not call ourselves feminists either because it is telling rather than showing?
Even assuming there is one “female experience”, I don’t see think “getting” (defined by whom?) “the female experience” is necessary for supporting a political ideology. What is necessary is political commitment. I would describe myself as a leftist even though I am not a working class person, I would say I am in favor of pro-drug reform though I neither consume nor sell drugs. Personal experience is one important source of knowledge but not the only one.
I also do not think of feminism as just a movement for women — I think of it as a movement against sex dscrimination per se. Freeing boys and men from sex stereotypes, the pressure to prove themselves “masculine” through violence, the humiliation of effeminate boys, the use of sexualized violence to impose hierarchies among men, feminism has something to say and do about all of these things.
I also found the sections about hating men to be …. well, let me put it this way. It is easy to mount the high horse and declare one is authorized to hate x, y and z. It ought to be accompanied by an acknowledgemnt that other people have just as much right to hate one, that one is not just an innocent, sanctified victim, but also privileged.
I think if Frederick Douglass, who had lived as a slave, could support white feminists and call himself a woman’s rights man — if he could travel that far in decency — I can walk far enough to see that men have also been abused by patriarchy, and deserve my political support. I am a rape survivor, I have plenty of personal anger toward men in some ways, but politics is not about lashing out, it’s about justice for everyone.
I’m behind on pretty much everything, but this one entry sticks in my craw a bit.
I agree with the notion that, being male, I don’t truly grok the female experience. I can sympathize, but the lack of shared experience makes true empathy difficult. So I shouldn’t presume. I’m 100% behind on that.
And I also agree with the notion that you have to show that you’re a feminist. Calling yourself a feminist while defending patriarchal and sexist ideas about women and gender, does not a feminist make.
The sticking point for me is that identifying openly as a feminist is a very powerful tool that anyone can use to raise awareness of and shape public perception of what feminism actually is. It’s a point that’s been related to me on a couple of occasions by different feminists: That if I support feminism – even if I am flawed in my support – that one of the best things I can do is say so publicly.
Which isn’t to say that I should call myself a feminist and expect a cookie, because that’s not how it works either. However, being an open feminist is a very simple base-line thing that I can do to support feminism.
It’s actually a really good conversation-starter for one-on-one education purposes.
Daniel: Actually, I consider myself a feminist.
Person X: You can’t be a feminist! Feminists believe .
D: Actually, they don’t. Or if they do, only a minority do. The feminists with which I am familiar actually hold .
X: Well they should just call themselves equalists then!
D:
X: You’re really wrong about feminism.
D: Lets test your knowledge of feminism. Can you name five public feminists?
X: What? I can’t do that. Can you?
D: Greta Christina, Laci Green, Sikivu Hutchinson, Ophelia Benson, Martha Naussbaum (or whoever springs to mind in the moment).
X: Just memorizing names doesn’t mean you know about feminism!
D: But the fact you can’t even name one means you don’t know enough about feminism to be familiar with the names. I clearly am, and I disagree with you. Perhaps your position isn’t as well-justified as you think it is?
X:
Whoops. Formatting failure. I was using greater-than and less-than tags as placeholders, and they were removed in my previous post. Apologies.
Daniel: Actually, I consider myself a feminist.
Person X: You can’t be a feminist! Feminists believe [straw-feminist caricature #47].
D: Actually, they don’t. Or if they do, only a minority do. The feminists with which I am familiar actually hold [rational feminist position regarding caricature #47, with justification].
X: Well they should just call themselves equalists then!
D: [femnism is equality between men and women sermon]
X: You’re really wrong about feminism.
D: Lets test your knowledge of feminism. Can you name five public feminists?
X: What? I can’t do that. Can you?
D: Greta Christina, Laci Green, Sikivu Hutchinson, Ophelia Benson, Martha Naussbaum (or whoever springs to mind in the moment).
X: Just memorizing names doesn’t mean you know about feminism!
D: But the fact you can’t even name one means you don’t know enough about feminism to be familiar with the names. I clearly am, and I disagree with you. Perhaps your position isn’t as well-justified as you think it is?
X: [awkwardly changes topic]