The pseudofeminist mandate to “choose” “choices”
Josh Spokes just reminded me that Twisty Faster exists and we should all be reading her.
On the performance of femininity for instance.
Author Kat George’s article is titled “Six Things That Definitely Don’t Make You a Bad Feminist.” Like everything published on the internet these days, it is a list.
The gist of her list is that performance of femininity does not conflict with feminist activism. It includes permission for feminists to change their name when they get married, to get waxed, and to let dudes pick up the tab.
The revolution has succeeded at last! All the problems are now solved. Just call everything “feminist” and see the waxy yellow buildup disappear.
But see here: if feminists who do understand feminism keep their traps shut when feminists who don’tunderstand feminism go around explaining feminism wrong, everybody loses.
Good thing I’m on the case!
For the public good it will be necessary to tweak Ms George’s definition of feminism just a smidge. Rather than a lifestyle accessory in the shape of some passive, nebulous, and capriciously applied “belief in gender equality,” feminism is in fact a political movement the goal of which is the liberation of women from patriarchal oppression.
It’s not just Ms George, either. So many of these ladies are flitting about the countryside with the idea that feminism is about believing in equality. Often they embellish the concept with vague notions of “empowerment” and the pseudofeminist mandate to “choose” “choices.” Suggests George, when you’ve got feminism onboard, “you can be whoever you want to be.” Particularly, it seems, when who you want to be is a woman who performs femininity, a set of behaviors specifically engineered to ensure the dehumanization and subjugation of half the global population.
Josh is right, I need to read more.
Anita Sarkeesian recently said:
“Just because a choice is made by a feminist, that doesn’t make it a feminist choice.”
So, Kardashians, high-heels, or hairy veganism; it doesn’t matter. What matters is in what context are you making your choice.
There’s some good stuff on that blog, thanks. I read a few posts and this brought me up short:
Later she clarifies:
This would be really depressing if it were true. I don’t think it is, though. I suppose she’s talking about pregnancy? But (1) lots of women don’t get pregnant, (2) a (admittedly very small) number of men do get pregnant, and (3) pregnancy doesn’t take up that much time in a woman’s life even if she does get pregnant. I hardly think we should give up on equality just for that.
Or I guess she could be slamming equity feminism, which I’d be on board with. It doesn’t read that way to me, though.
Anyway it’s this post for what it’s worth: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2014/04/04/spleenvent-friday-feminism-as-happiness-destroyer-edition/
Cressida, I love Twisty and am sad every day she doesn’t post. It’s been a looong time. Anyway, her point about equality is — if I’ve understood correctly — partly the same as Voltaire’s (? or someone else?) famous line about “The Law in its magnificent impartiality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.”
Equality, by itself does not guarantee that needs are met or potential is realized to the best extent possible. This isn’t just because women get pregnant. The needs of women may differ from men’s in many ways. If men and women alike are forbidden from growing long hair, it helps nobody (to invent a totally trivial example).
Also, equality, by itself, doesn’t say anything about how well anyone does. Is it okay if everyone is equally poor / enslaved / humiliated / etc.? I certainly wouldn’t see that as a useful goal.
At least, if you digest the notion that ‘femininity’ is a role to be performed, you might be closer to recognizing how arbitrary and artificial the notion of femininity actually IS.
That does make some sense, quixote. Thank you.
This!