http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network
Liberal Prose BlogAds Network
Why feminism isn't for everybody

Seems someone wasn�t too pleased with my comments in Rebecca Traister's Salon piece yesterday, specifically my advice to women who are afraid of calling themselves feminists because people may call them fat, ugly dykes (suck it up).

Talk about missing the point:

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. I believe in complete and total equality for women, right down to my opening a door for a man every bit as easily as he opens doors for me. But I do not refer to myself as a feminist at this time. When will I?

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. Ovaries only make you female, they do not make you woman and I am a woman.

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.

Okay, I get it. You're the femmiest femme around. You're made of sugar spice and estrogen drips out of your ears. Jeez.

You know, I could post pictures of myself in a bikini pleasuring my boyfriend and people will still call me and ugly lesbian because of my opinions on equality. But I really don't give a shit. Which is what this womanly woman doesn;t quite get.

Traister's article talks about abandoning "feminism" for a word that appeals to more women. But maybe the word feminism is so great because it doesn't appeal to everyone. Do we really want to work alongside women like the one above? Women who are homophobic, racist or classist? Not all women are feminists by virtue of having ovaries, and that's just fine by me.

Feminism's power isn't in how many women identify with the cause. I'll take quality over quantity any day.

Posted by Jessica - July 06, 2005, at 12:48PM | in News , Sexism , Updates

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why feminism isn't for everybody.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/2296

24 Comments

[0+|0-]  Polly said:

Oh dear. I could write all kinds of nasty things about your correspondent, but it wouldn't much further the cause of sisterhood.
It does seem a shame she can't find the time in her busy Dolly Parton 9-5 lifestyle to actually read a book, just one book, by or about feminism. She might find out what feminism is about beneath the pile of lies and contortions dumped on it by the popular media. Maybe then she wouldn't be so angry with feminists for trying to make things better.
I'm also quite happy to fuck off with my hairy legs, I quite like them and fucking.

Wow! That's one angry homophobe! She has no idea what actual feminism is, is my guess, or she wouldn't stoop to the same tired old stereotypical insults that men and homophobes use when they want to belittle us.

Poor thing has eyebrows to wax, and yet she found time to write a comment: NOw that's one progressive woman! I've also been on my own since I was 17. Independence has nothing to do with feminism, what the hell is she saying there??

I have to also wonder what she's getting a PhD in?? How can you be that educated and that ignorant? It never ceases to amaze me.

The irony is this self-labelled "feminist" used more derogatory slang words to describe feminists than I've ever heard in my life!

Wow, she sounds fun.

[0+|0-]  easilyirritable said:

I wonder how she plans on completing a PhD when it seems she has absolutely zero analytical ability.

God. How many years must we hear that we are ugly, mannish dykes before such critics realize that they sound like four year olds throwing a temper tantrum on the school yard because someone stole his or her toy?

[0+|0-]  Ahlana said:

My first inclination is to wonder how she found the time to make this crap up... I'm a rather staunch activist, and I hang out with a lot of hippies/feminists/anarchists/etc., but I've never met any women like the ones she describes. Ever.

I know a lot of women with a (much more muted) version of this protest to the idea of feminism. My sister feels that being a feminist means that she can't be a stay at home mom (which is what she wants to do with her life). It's hard to get across to her that feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices and not taking choices away. Stay at home feminine women have just as much right to do what makes them happy as PhD pursuing, tomboy, anti-family women like me.

[0+|0-]  deja pseu said:

I went over there and read the blog entry and comments. Sheesh. I'm not sure if "The Goddess" is also the blog owner, but I've encountered that dynamic before. It's the "I'm not like you other women; I'm Special" type. Maybe us other weak women would have allowed ourselves to be opressed prior to feminism, but not our Special gals. They would have voted even without a constitutional ammendment. They would have taken jobs as doctors, lawyers, cattle wranglers...even though in some places it was forbidden by law. They don't believe in the glass ceiling or discrimination; it's just that those women who haven't reached the highest levels of power aren't smart/determined/strong/Special enough. It's rugged individualism run amock.

And geez, I tweeze my eyebrows, shave my legs, color my hair, and am a shoe-and-handbag junkie at the Sex In The City level. Feh. It doesn't make me more of a woman or less of a feminist than anyone else. There's a bit too much chest thumping going on over there.

[0+|0-]  ikkin said:

I don't think she has the broad-spectrum thought capacity to be a feminist. You have to be very open and ready, which are things she only thinks she practices. This woman is clearly unstable.

"A woman has a choice: feminist or masochist."
-Gloria Steinem

[0+|0-]  Bertson said:

And the fact that she needs to wax her eyebrows and shave her legs in order to have a career isn't a problem?

[0+|0-]  Denise said:

If a woman refuses to see another woman's right to choose the way she dresses herself and presents her gender, then I don't really want her in my movement anyway. Maybe she should do some reading on gender construction, eh? And maybe she should do some thinking about why she's so averse to being called a lesbian, or being lumped together with lesbians.

I now have the urge to shave my head, just because the femme club seems a little less fun now.

[0+|0-]  Jayanne said:

Goodness. What a silly woman (and all the other nasty things you say about her, yes). I blew my top and left a long upping-the-ante comment, but I think she asked for it.
Amanda, I know what you mean: I think I may buy some dungarees and boots and put off getting my hair re-"tinted"!

[0+|0-]  Liz said:

At the source of all this (the Salon article), what we essentially have is a debate on semantics, on whether or not women who agree with a number of feminist viewpoints choose to identify themselves as "feminists." Given the fact that this is ultimately just about a label, isn't this whole discussion more than a little overheated? I don't understand the need for throwing stereotypes at stereotypes; I don't understand the need for personal attacks on someone you don't even know. As an acquaintance of hers, I think it's more than safe to say that she is not a homophobe.

The quote above is the most inflammatory part of The Goddess' post. (And, yes, "The Goddess" is the blogger in question.) Taken out of context, I can see where it could easily make you angry, but I also think a number of you are missing the point. I read it as a big "fuck you" to the militant bulldyke stereotype linked with feminism, the "pile of lies and contortions dumped on it by the popular media," not to the ideals of the feminist movement itself or to lesbians. Essentially, if I interpret her post correctly, she's not going to identify herself as a feminist until that stereotype is largely dispelled and feminists as a whole are willing to be more inclusive. Many of you aren't doing anything to further your cause. There's fodder for a very interesting debate here, but only after the anger and name-calling has been put aside.

While I find her argument overly simplistic, I think she does have a valid point. From one of the comments above:

My sister feels that being a feminist means that she can't be a stay at home mom (which is what she wants to do with her life). It's hard to get across to her that feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices and not taking choices away. Stay at home feminine women have just as much right to do what makes them happy as PhD pursuing, tomboy, anti-family women like me.

A lot of women are going to shy away from the feminist label for precisely those reasons - because they equate the feminism with a certain set of predetermined choices that don't necessarily have anything to do with their goals in life or the identity they want to present to the world. I think Ahlana gets the point exactly right. Feminism is not only about equality but also the empowerment to make your own decisions, regardless of what society - or in this case, other feminists - happen to think.

[0+|0-]  Jessica said:

Liz, I understand your desire to defend your acquaintance, but I think you're being a bit too generous in your take on her post.

Firstly, as far as personal attacks go, "the goddess'" whole post was a personal attack! Unless I'm not supposed to take "fuck off and take your hairy legs with you" personally. Secondly, I don't think the quote was taken out of context at all. She is pretty much outright saying that she doesn't identify as a feminist because "mannabees" make it unattractive to "real" women.

The point that I was trying to make--that she completely missed--wasn't that you can't be a real feminist if you're femme-y or wear lipstick and heels and shit. I fucking wear lipstick and heels. The point is that too many women are afraid of being seen as unattractive and/or lesbians (which I'm sorry, if you're worried about, is homophobic) that they shy away from the word 'feminism'. So her rant against "fat, mannish dykes" (the women, not the stereotype) really just proves my point.

Feminism is not only about equality but also the empowerment to make your own decisions, regardless of what society - or in this case, other feminists - happen to think.

I agree completely, which this blogger (whose updated post now says that I disregard women who have a "devotion to lipstick, motherhood or faith") could easily see had she bothered to look at Feministing for more than two minutes.

[0+|0-]  tfreridge said:

When did the word feminist become synonymous with dyke?

[0+|0-]  C-Bird said:

Sad thing is it is hard to have any credibility as a feminist unless you are thin and pretty. It is the same shit We have to deal with on any other scope.

I am still happy to have the "fat ugly dykes" on our side.

[0+|0-]  Ahlana said:

How can we get rid of the militant/butch/lesbian feminist stereotype unless fem/girly/hetero women (or average run of the mill men; both gay and straight) start proudly announcing themselves as feminists?

If the only women confident enough to say that they are for women's rights are the outliers of the group then the stereotype will be perpetuated.

I hosted a dinner party a while ago in which I was in the kitchen with a rolling pin, in heels and a dress, wearing make-up and perfume, with my hair done up. I turned to my significant other and said "It's good to be a modern feminist". The next day I played softball. I love being a violation of stereotypes.

[0+|0-]  Liz said:

I understand where you're coming from entirely, Jessica. In pointing out what I perceive to be a central point of The Goddess' post, something that's largely been missed here, I was primarily trying to steer the conversation in a more constructive direction.

There are sixteen comments here, many of them angry. There are only four comments on your original post on "the F-word" article, where the seeds for an interesting and intelligent conversation have already been planted. I have a considerable problem with that.

Uh, Liz, she's getting far nicer than she gave. The "ugly man-hating hairy dyke" (non)argument is the feminist version of Godwin's Law.

Jessica--"I agree completely, which this blogger (whose updated post now says that I disregard women who have a "devotion to lipstick, motherhood or faith") could easily see had she bothered to look at Feministing for more than two minutes."

And where does that leave us mascara devotees, I ask you???

Sheezle, feminism would go down so much easier if we would just be nice girls like we're supposed to. In fact, in general, feminism would be easier to swallow if feminists sided with the patriarchy and agreed to shove restrictive gender roles on women.

[0+|0-]  shmana said:

Amanda, I think you're onto something. It's like in every sitcom from the past two decades, how the wife "defers" to the husband so he feels all manly but in reality she's just fucking with him to get what she wants. (Speaking of fun stereotypes...) Our message would be so much more palatable if it came from women without shaved heads, in knee-length skirt suits, 2-in pumps and aprons. Look at Rice, how much power she's been handed in exchange for her "renunciation" of feminist principles. If only we, as a movement, could talk ourselves into putting on the Laura Bush costume (shudder) long enough to sneak our whole platform in under the Right radar.

Oh gross, good thing I don't have any hair to hold back while I puke after that image...

[0+|0-]  aideen said:

"I read it as a big "fuck you" to the militant bulldyke stereotype linked with feminism, the "pile of lies and contortions dumped on it by the popular media," not to the ideals of the feminist movement itself or to lesbians. Essentially, if I interpret her post correctly, she's not going to identify herself as a feminist until that stereotype is largely dispelled and feminists as a whole are willing to be more inclusive."

The article was worded as a direct attack on the androgynous women she's writing about. If she were attacking a stereotype, her anger should be pointed in the direction of pop culture and the media, but she's actually addressing the "mannabees" personally.

[0+|0-]  tim said:

I'm such a fat, ugly dyke that I'm actually a 24 year old, overweight man (with hairy legs, even!). And I'm pursuing an advanced degree in Women Studies. I wonder if she'd make fun of me for being mannish....

[0+|0-]  Andrew Milner said:

Go for it girl. Fast forward 100 years: Are you up for living on Mars as a colonist? All on the same side as we develop the planet. Could build a whole new society where science and technology is king. Leave Planet Earth far behind with its quarrelling individual countries and religious BS. The gender relationship would be based in a whole set of different criteria, and a Ph.D. brain is the biggest turn on ever. Every new baby born would be excuse for a celebration. Has to be better than right now.

[0+|0-] Author Profile Page AmandaLW said:

I am one of the most girly-girls you can meet. I like to get my hair done, my nails, I wear lots of makeup and lots of pink. I'm not a tomboy. I am straight, and attractive and I get my eyebrows waxed, shave my legs, etc... that in no way makes me any less of a feminist than anyone else. Feminism is taking up for women's rights and saying that we want things equal, it's not about not shaving your legs.

Leave a comment