Like many politicized and not so "political" women of color I've had my qualms identifying as a feminist. As addressed before the Internet blew up, traditional western feminist discourse connotes white, middle class, straight women and many of the issues fought center this group; that has been covered extensively Online, in print, and on Feministing by folks like Samhita. Zoom back to me, as a 27 year-old daughter of working-class Mexican immigrants and a single urban mama , my lifestyle and at times worldview does not seem to be grasped by western feminism. Like I've said before in my other blog and in real life conversations, my mama, grandmama (resting in peace now) aunties, mentors and closest friends do not identify as feminists and are some of the staunchest, strongest, hard working, autonomous independent thinkers, and just people that I know. All without identifying with feminism, and as complicated as that is, I respect that and even admire it. Honoring the women in my blood and non blood family relating to them, has made it easy for me to question and at moments reject dominant feminism.
Until recently (two years recent), a feminism that centers women of color is where I have felt at home. Even then, when asked I don't use feminist to self-label. This feminism that I speak is born from the legacy of Audre Lorde and Gloria Anzaldua among other U.S. women of color thinkers. I had the privilege to attend the Allied Media Conference summer of 2007 engaging in the INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence track with a host of other women of color bloggers.
A handful of women of color bloggers had pin pointed each other whether serendipitously or intentionally online around thoughtful dialogue, intense engagement, and in some cases friendships and we planned to come together and have a presence at the AMC conference. Since, friendships centering healing/dialoge/creation have flourished. The group has grown and some no longer blog but we have been working together on a couple media projects that soon will be debuting. When that happens, and real soon, I'll be sure to share here and cross post the fruits of those connections.
Like many feminists and reject the feminist label feminists, I embrace and challenge the complexity of feminisms, and recognize its definite contributions to humanity's advances. Similarly dispose of its negative/marginalizing connotations and actions. Thus feel that the smoothing process of the love/hate relationship with feminism is to engage in the movement of movements surrounding makeshift feminist labeling, and like me, non label of feminist while we act on our ideas in our offline lives. In my opinion and experience, it's okay to reject the feminist label because of the racist history of feminism, of its exclusivity centering white/middle-class/straight women at the backs of women of color; reject it because of the damage and many times inability to accept its harsh history and also actions and inaction. I write this with the understanding that I will not tell another person what to do and fully believe in their autonomy/empowerment while fighting the system of poverty, war, criminalization of people of color, colonization of our communities and minds simultaneously healing around change in art/culture in the communities that I belong to.
There are a couple projects that I would like to mention that embody the feminism that centers fluidity, embraces non-feminist labeling, and is working at the crossroads of oppression. Living in Los Angeles I am privileged to work with and know the Make/Shift Magazine crew (most who are based in LA) a magazine that 'embraces the multiple and shifting identities of feminist communities" check them out if you haven't already and subscribe if you can. My paid day job is with a neighborhood based community development corporation in South Los Angeles, and that's with Esperanza . C ommunity residents/tenants and promotoras (community health promoters) of Esperanza embody types of feminisms that promote well-being and empowerment without ushering the word. I speak of mostly low-income immigrant women organizing for responsible community development as gentrification sweeps our city, fighting to make housing as a human right, advocating for holisitic health and well-being. Then there's INCITE! LA Women of Color Against Violence , fighting violence in our communities and homes centering women of color through art/healing. Finally there is DWAC members uniting to fight against interpersonal violence, as well as institutional violence taking place in downtown Los Angeles. Lastly I cannot forget the women that are single moms in their 20s like me, positive as can be despite their obstacles with finances, and society (sometimes exes) shaming single young brown moms, slut shaming the usual, yet kicking ass for their children. Many of whom never identify as feminist or identify as nonpolitical, yet their stamina to move forward and to be the best they can be for their children is a very feminist and political act in itself.
I realize that this is a very privilege thing to do, blog about the love/hate relationship with feminism in the US on a vacation day sitting at my kitchen table while my daughter is at childcare. A kitchen I am hustling to keep may I add, nevertheless I have it now. This in the city with the largest homeless population and a city with a Mayor that is endorsing the Palestinians living in terror as we speak. Mothers and aunties and daughters are crying for a loved one killed that live in war zone. Figuring how to reconcile the stark realities of those living in inhumane poverty in my home city and war zone in the world community at large, one dialogue, action (in community) at a time.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My Love/Hate Relationship with Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11251
Your post is interesting, and it made me think: I wonder if one can just claim feminism as a label without those connotations? I hate sayings I m this, or I am that, personally, and I don't know if that limits me. I try to embrace and live out a sort of egalitarian humanism that emphasizes equality, fairness, compassion, etc., while recognizing that certain groups have been shat on in the past, so my ideals definitely aren't the norm,nor are they reality, and I need to work towards realizing them. I don't say 'I'm a feminist" but I agree with a lot of the principles I hear self-labeled feminists espouse, and I'm willing to defend those beliefs.
I'm coming at it from a different position though, so I can't pretend to know how you've struggled with the label.
I dunno, I think with a system of thinking it's kind of different, and for that reason I have no problem using the term (disclaimer: I am white and middle class, though not straight).
For example, Christians over the years have done some messed up stuff.. seriously. But does that mean someone who believes in and agrees with the bible and Christian philosophy shouldn't label themselves as "Christian" for fear of being associated with, say, the KKK?
The same would go for any belief/values system. Anything with more than a few years to the label will tend to have a sexist/racist/classist/prejudiced background because society as a whole comes from a sexist/racist/classist/prejudiced background.
In my opinion, rejecting the term feminism only divides women, rather than bringing them together. I understand that you feel like women of colour have issues separate to "mainstream" feminism (though I'm not 100% sure if feminism has ever been mainstream), but I would argue that more and more, feminism aligns itself very very strongly to anti-racism and anti-homophobic movements and groups.
I would argue that using the term feminism and de-shaming the word would be a positive step, ensuring that there is an umbrella term underneath which its different facets and groups can gather. I guess what I'm saying is that you can disagree with the way in which an ideology has been executed in the past without rejecting the ideology as a whole; in this case, the ideology that women deserve equal rights and treatment to men, and that our society is currently working from the basis of patriarchy.
Of course, I can't really comment on what is correct for you personally, or as a woman of color.
However I can say that I feel like rejecting the label "feminism" outrightly as a woman of colour (or a GLBTQ or low-SES person, for example), even though you agree with its ideology and basic principles, seems to me to be a way of ensuring that the term "feminism" remains within the hands of white, middle-class, straight women.
Again, though, you didn't actually give details as to which feminist theory you agree with and what you specifically have problems with, so I am running on the assumption that you agree with its basic principles.
The oppression olympics are without a doubt the funniest thing to come out of postmodernism, because they are just so damn ironic.
See, if you are oppressed, you can make an argument and only people who are equal to or more oppressed than you can respond -- everyone else is too privileged. It goes without saying that any (white and/or male and/or straight) privilege you enjoy renders your contributions to e.g. discussions of policy or social issues invalid (independent of course of the content of your argument).
But as the OP demonstrates, the politics of victimhood eats its own young -- because there is always someone more oppressed! Too bad for you, feminists of the 70's, you're too white! It also does a great job of alienating those among the relatively more privileged who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause...
It's no wonder people just write off the humanities wholesale -- with friends like these, who needs enemies?
I think it's important not to automatically use the idea of "oppression olympics" to hide behind privilege. I didn't read Fabiola's post as comparing marginalization or disadvantage, but rather she was pointing out marginalization within a movement whose aim is suppose to be against marginalizing. As someone who does identify as a feminist, I think that this is an important point of view and critique that has been systematically silenced throughout the history of the movement. and unfortunately, it continues today. I understand the argument (or rather instinct to believe) that it "divides women", but it's important to look at the underlying message that this statement implies - it is a silencing mechanism.
Can't we listen without being defensive? The ability to listen and acknowledge privilege and different experiences of women and to try and be more inclusive, should not be too great of a request for feminism. In fact, I think it needs to be it's greatest strength.
I didn't read Fabiola's post as comparing marginalization or disadvantage, but rather she was pointing out marginalization within a movement whose aim is suppose to be against marginalizing.
That's because you read it with an open mind and without a defensive attitude. This is an instance of "checking your privilege at the door," which obviously doesn't always happen on Feministing.
OK, that was very passive-aggressive. Sorry. But I won't take it back. =)
Totally. I'm really disappointed with the number of affirmations that "oppression olympics" comment got... damn, can't we do better than that?
Well said.
This is why I think language has to be well defined and adhered to. I think "feminism" means the belief that women and men are equal and should be treated equally. Once I've got that down, it's easy for me to label feminists regardless of what they choose to label themselves. I just take my definition and apply it.
Similarly, people should talk about issues and positions, not who they came from. If a certain position is informed by privilege and misses something important, then point it out. If personal experience is important because it demonstrates something missed by someone in a privileged class, then certainly use that experience to teach. One should expect another feminist to be willing to listen carefully and think critically regardless of their background. That's the whole point.
I think "feminism" means the belief that women and men are equal and should be treated equally.
Talk about being stuck in the 70s...
Once I've got that down, it's easy for me to label feminists regardless of what they choose to label themselves. I just take my definition and apply it.
How very patriarchal of you.
The act of reasoning is patriarchal? I know the meaning of terms, and I know how to apply them. There's nothing patriarchal or anything else about it. We can talk about whether I've got the right meaning, or whether I'm applying them correctly, but I don't see what it has to do with patriarchy.
And you say stuck in the 70's, but really, what else do you think the term means? Anything else we add is probably just going to boil down to Egalitarianism anyway. And why not just use that term? Why argue about terms at all? We know the principles. They're actually the most simple principles you could think of. The basic position is that everyone is pretty much the same, so everyone should be treated pretty much the same. Why make the label needlessly complicated?
Claiming that your definition is the one true definition and reserving the right to apply it to whomever you will is, indeed, patriarchal. There's a lot of interesting literature in anthropology about labeling the people you study in terms that they themselves would agree to. Inviting your subjects to have a say in how they are labelled and defined portrays them as autonomous, self-aware beings.
And feminism has been a lot more than equality feminism for many decades. Equality feminism was dominant during the first wave (the suffragettes...) and has been the most prominant form of feminism in the political realm. However, many feminisms have become more concerned with cultural attitudes, systemic oppression of marginalized groups, socially constructed gender roles and norms, etc. To say that feminism is just about equality is itself exclusionary. Why do you get to define what it is and is not and determine who is or is not a feminist?
At some point, words need to have meaning. When I say label, I'm just thinking about in my own mind. If I were talking with people about how they should be labeled, I'd agree to label them oranges as long as we've all agreed on what that term means. Which is why I like the classic standard definition of feminism. Just interpret it as broadly as possible and there's nothing you could want to add to it.
"many feminisms have become more concerned with cultural attitudes, systemic oppression of marginalized groups, socially constructed gender roles and norms, etc."
That's all already contained in a classic definition of feminism. Any issue that allows you to distinguish between the way any groups are systematically treated would be relevant to me. Obviously systematic oppression or marginalization or even boys like blue girls like pink is treating people differently, and should be opposed. I don't think you would really want to argue with the idea that everyone should be treated the same. What could you possibly add to that?
And I just don't like the way you use the term patriarchal. I guess we'd have to agree on how to use it... but you just use it as a synonym for anything hierarchical or oppressive. If we were talking about a system where shorter people ruled over taller people, it wouldn't be patriarchal.
I hate Philosophy of Language, but here goes...
Pretending like words are labels, with single, denotative meanings, that we can go around sticking onto objects like sticky notes hasn't been a widely accepted view since the time of John Stuart Mill. Pretty much everyone now agrees that language doesn't work that way, that words carry a rich variety of connotative meanings, and that there does not have to be a one-to-one correspondence. I tend to think of words that apply to ideologies that have a long and varied history as umbrella terms for groupings of beliefs, ideas, or approaches that bear a family resemblance (think Wittgenstein, here) rather than one feature that they all share. Wittgenstein's example of words like this was "game." There's no one feature that all games have in common, but in spite of the lack of a single denotative definition or a unifying feature, we're all pretty darn good at identifying games. So clearly this hasn't caused the sort of chaos and confusion that your example about the oranges implies.
How does this apply to feminisms? I doubt that difference feminists would be pleased with your exclusion of them simply because they don't agree with equality feminism. In fact, there are a number of feminist theories that don't think equality is the be-all end-all for feminism. But you reserve the right to exclude these people from feminism because they don't fit into the narrow definition you prefer.
And about the term "patriarchy"... I think we've discussed this before. The term patriarchy used to only refer to domination by an authoritarian male, generally the father of a clan, yada, yada, yada. However, the usage of the term changed to refer to any system in when men were dominant. Now the term is used in an even broader way, and encompasses hierarchical and dominant thinking and behavior in general. This is just a feature of the way language works. General usage of terms changes over time. Language is not something that is set in stone, but rather is constantly in the process of evolving. Maybe you're one of those conservationists that hates this fact. If that's the case, then I will henceforth remind you of the etymology of all the words you use in order to correct you by pointing to their "original" meaning. For instance, in the future, if you use the word "gay" I'll assume you mean "happy and light-hearted." Oh wait, I can't even use phrases like "light-hearted" or "pointing to" in this way, because these are metaphorical, and thus digress from their original meaning...
I love philosophy of language, but I don't think it's necessary for this. I wasn't trying to be that specific. My point was that all feminisms are going to be basically the same, and boil down to basically the same things at the end of the day. Women, men, and all people of all types deserve the same respect and treatment and whatever else you want to take the time to spell out. Do you disagree that we're all after the same thing, and any distinctions are going to be largely in the way of how to get there or even more nuanced differences?
And about patriarchy... now what word do we have to describe a family system headed by the father? Or do we not need such a word? Or should we make up a new one now that the old one is being used elsewhere. And you just described the system that it is supposed to describe using two words. Why not just use those words instead?
I'm in no way opposed to the idea that language changes and evolves as needed. But as needed, not arbitrarily. We have perfectly good words that describe the things you're talking about. And when you say that "now" it's used that way, what you mean is that now it's used that way by a relatively small group of feminists working in a very specific context. Let's ask 1000 random people what "patriarchy" means and see how many people come back with each of our respective definitions.
So do you use the term "patriarchy" to refer to a culture where males are dominant? If so, you're using it incorrectly, according to your own argument. You should only use it to refer to a family structure in which the father has unquestioned authority. And insisting that the word cannot mean anything other than what you take it to mean simply dismisses large sectors of feminist dialogue and literature.
You may wish for more clarity but I think that often this need to lump everything together and define it in one narrow way is 1) inconsistent with the way the world works and the way we actually use language, and 2) problematic in that you end up taking the words of some to represent everyone. This is another silencing mechanism. Case in point: when American/British/Aussie feminists refer to "French feminism" they often just have in mind the Psych et Po group (Irigaray, Kristeva...). This effectively disappears all the other significant and interesting French feminists off the map. I find this approach problematic.
It makes sense to me to expand patriarchy to include male domination of various areas of society. There isn't a word for that concept, and the concept of patriarchy is very close, so people will intuitively know what you're talking about. But patriarchy includes concepts of male domination, so applying it to any hierarchical system just seems to me to import the idea that domination is inherently male, or vice versa, and I see no reason to make connotations like that when we already have perfectly good gender-neutral terms. You being so ardently against biological essentialism I would think you'd appreciate the desire not to turn "maleness" prima facie into heirarchy, which is what I feel like is what happens when you use "patriarchy" to describe things that have nothing to do with sex.
And I would never want to say "well this author uses this term incorrectly, so what they are saying is meaningless". I'll always accept whatever terms an author wants to use as long as they are clear and consistent with what they want them to mean. This is just my critique of how we "should" use terms. I just don't want to automatically say that male means hierarchy and all heirarchy is inherently male. That seems like a bad place to go.
Yeah, I don't necessarily think that "patriarchy" is always the best term either, but it's fairly common in the literature. And you know me - it's not in my nature to be confrontational, subversive, or to buck the system in any way.
Note: it's rude to squirt coffee through your nose...
I have a harder and harder time deciphering your posts.
Sorry. The squirting coffee through your nose thing was in reference to the usual response I get when claiming not to be confrontational, subversive, etc.
Clearly you're not paying attnetion, so this is probably a waste of my time, but here goes.
The identity of the speaker is not the problem when it comes to the issue of privilege, and by reducing it to that you make a straw man out of the argument. The issue is that people from privileged backgrounds have often claimed to speak for everyone, thus marginalizing the experiences of "others" even further. As a privileged person you can be inclusive in your research and activism. But you have to be willing to do the work of forging relationships with members of other groups that can foster constructive dialogue, true listening (which requires setting aside your own ego and agenda), and an inclusiveness in the voices that are heard. This is a difference in approach, not identity.
And your little rant on the "oppression olympics" is offensive and demonstrates your privilege and unwillingness to listen and learn.
In my opinion and experience, it's okay to reject the feminist label because of the racist history of feminism, of its exclusivity centering white/middle-class/straight women at the backs of women of color; reject it because of the damage and many times inability to accept its harsh history and also actions and inaction.
This is the problem Rachel, and what I'm assuming hfs was talking about. "Those feminists were too privileged, I don't need to associate with them." "My feminism is concerned with people who share my struggle, which is worse than this other struggle."
Those might contain truth, but they are also somewhat at odds with the basic principles you're talking about. Can you see how that feels intuitively disingenuous?
It really irritates me when someone just says "That view just demonstrates your privilege." without adding anything. Well that's nice, but please tell me how. You can't just say "privilege" as though you're actually pointing something out. You need to explain what about that attitude demonstrates privilege. Otherwise you're just throwing buzz words because you don't know what else to do.
OK, then let me restate that this view demonstrates your ignorance of the history of feminism.
Let's begin in the middle, with Betty Friedan. Friedan was well-intentioned but blinded by her privilege. She advocated that women hire a nanny and maid to keep house and watch their kids so that they could return to the working world in order to find true fulfillment and better utitlize their talents and education. Who do you think the maids and nannies were supposed to be? Was their work going to be fulfilling and make better use of their talents and education? Of course not, but the lower-class women (often WoC) who would fill these roles didn't factor into Friedan's feminism, which mostly applied to middle and upper-class white educated women. This is the kind of thing the OP is referencing.
To call this an "oppression olympics" is insulting and a silencing mechanism. Pointing out exclusionary practices and ideologies does not amount to whining about being the bigger victim. The point is, if feminism claims to be about all women, then it really needs to be about all women, rather than focusing on the needs and concerns of the privileged few. Why is that so fucking hard to understand?
It's not at all hard to understand. And your example shows a big obvious flaw in what was apparently once a feminist theory. And you're right that I am quite ignorant about the history of feminism. I'm certainly not claiming otherwise. But hey, I was still able to see how glaringly contradictory that example is. And I did it through the blinding haze of my own privilege.
It's totally a good idea to point out hypocrisy, and exclusionary practices and ideologies. Hsf's point, as I understand it, was that the concept of privilege itself sometimes seems like it is being used as a silencing mechanism. If one is not a member of a satisfactorily oppressed group, their opinions are not really valid, because they don't really understand the experiences of that group. I don't disagree with the reality of privilege at all. But saying that someone's view is less legitimate simply because of their privilege is just the same as any other criteria that excludes someone based on a factor beyond their control. If there is hypocrisy like the kind in your example, then point it out, and it should become pretty obvious. I think every view should be examined and critiqued equally regardless of who it came from. Why is that so bleeping hard to understand? ^_^
I'm just kidding; sorry I'm so irritating. I don't think that we're saying at all that we shouldn't point out problems with any theory. But I don't see who hsf is supposed to be trying to silence. Do you see why I think these things or do I just seem extraordinarily dense?
I think I understand what you are saying, I just feel like the concept of silencing exists differently for people depending on whether or not their perspective is marginalized by larger society.
For a marginalized perspective to be heard is more difficult, because they are fighting for a perspective that is not honoured in 'mainstream' culture. For a person with a societal privileged perspective to be heard is, unfortunately, easier to hear for many people because it solidifies exclusive (and sometimes oppressive) beliefs that underline our society.
For this reason, it is necessary for the person of privilege to not further silence a marginalized perspective.
To quote myself:
The identity of the speaker is not the problem when it comes to the issue of privilege, and by reducing it to that you make a straw man out of the argument. The issue is that people from privileged backgrounds have often claimed to speak for everyone, thus marginalizing the experiences of "others" even further. As a privileged person you can be inclusive in your research and activism. But you have to be willing to do the work of forging relationships with members of other groups that can foster constructive dialogue, true listening (which requires setting aside your own ego and agenda), and an inclusiveness in the voices that are heard. This is a difference in approach, not identity.
Once again, it's not a question of whether or not somebody is legitimate because of their privilege. It's not a question of whether they should be allowed to speak. Nobody is trying to silence white upper-class feminists because of who they are.* The question is, who are they speaking for? It goes without saying that you cannot speak for someone who's experience is significantly different from your own. The problem that the op references is a history of privileged feminists articulating their experiences and problems as if these are the experiences and problems of all women. To assume that you represent women everywhere is to buy into and reinforce the norming of your group and the othering of the marginalized group. A similar problem is trying to speak on behalf of someone whom you have not taken the time to really know or understand. Studying someone without really listening to their words and including their voices in your research is deeply problematic. Why is this so hard to understand?!?
*A small caveat: at times people who continuously refuse to approach the discussion with an open mind and honest intentions, and who show a complete inability to check their privilege at the door are silenced, simply because this kind of attitude makes constructive dialogue difficult or impossible. But in that case it's their attitude that results in the silencing, not their identity.
That's not hard to understand at all. I feel like you keep saying things that are obvious to clarify something that seems complicated. Is your whole point really that people have to listen to other people in order to understand them? Because, duh.
I think I see why we're having this communication problem though. So, cheerio.
Then why do you keep defending the claims that WoC are trying to silence white feminists and that marginalized groups are competing to be the worst victim? This doesn't make any sense if you understood my response.
"My feminism is concerned with people who share my struggle..."
My understanding of some of the events that happened during the first and second waves was that many women were feeling excluded from other progressive, left-leaning movements. Progressive men were not noticing that there seemed to be little space for women's voices among them. Women involved in these movements began to take the principles of inclusion and equality that they had been fighting for in other movements and began applying them to their own experiences. They came together and began to work towards inclusion and equality for women. This to me is the principle of being "concerned with people who share my struggle." Women coming together to support women is sharing a struggle. I think I vaguely interpreted this from something I read from Judy Rebrick (Ten Thousand Roses), so correct me if I am wrong.
If this is true, then shouldn't that movement be open to inclusion in all areas?
"...which is worse than this other struggle"
I didn't see Fabiola say anywhere that one thing was "worse" than another. That sounds like your interpretation of her words, which sounds like privilege to me. I will try to explain why. She was just stating her experience within a movement. I think that your interpretation of HER experience,
as identifying 'mainstream feminism' as being 'this OTHER struggle', dichotomizes the oppressions of gender and race. By separating these two oppressions, because you can, implies privilege, because for women of colour they are not separate.
Rachel_in_WY:
Despite your dismissive tone, I will try to engage your comments.
"The identity of the speaker is not the problem when it comes to the issue of privilege, and by reducing it to that you make a straw man out of the argument."
I don't understand how that is compatible with what comes next:
"...But you have to be willing to do the work of forging relationships with members of other groups that can foster constructive dialogue, true listening (which requires setting aside your own ego and agenda), and an inclusiveness in the voices that are heard. This is a difference in approach, not identity."
If I make an argument or advocate policy, it should not matter whom I've engaged in dialogue. All that matters is whether my argument is logical, and whether I have cited statistically significant evidence in favor of my hypothesis. The point is that whether or not you have experienced oppression does not per se make your arguments any more interesting or valuable. But it does matter: for example, if I criticize or disagree with any group that has less privilege than I do, whatever I've said can be disregarded, *regardless of its merits*, because I can never be sufficiently inclusive toward that group.
Deciding that you can never be sufficiently inclusive of a marginalized group is a great way to throw up your hands and admit defeat. And it reduces the valid critique of marginalized groups to a bunch of whining and nitpicking. Referring to valid complaints concerning exculsionary practices as "the oppression olympics" is demeaning and silencing. You seem to have completely missed my point, but perhaps your knowledge of the history of feminism (and many other social justice movements) is simply too lacking for you to be able to grasp the point.
When the privileged group speaks of their own problems and concerns, with no attempt to be inclusive or find out what the concerns of the marginalized groups are, and then acts as if they speak for everyone, this is exclusionary and othering. It's not problematic because of who they are. It's problematic because of their approach and their attitude. Is this not logical enough for you? I'm not sure how I could explain it in any simpler terms.
OK, I think I understand what you're saying, finally:
Let's say there exist oppressed groups of people "A" and "AB" who both belong to group "C," where group AB is oppressed in a worse manner than group A: group AB suffers an additional form of oppression on top of that suffered by group A.
Now your point is that if I want to make an argument about how the patriarchy is oppressing me via method A, then I had better be careful to not to attempt to speak for all of group C, because I'd be marginalizing everyone in group AB, unless I've spent a long time engaging with group AB and their issues.
But that's not what I objected to. The OP said that she does not consider herself a feminist because historically feminists only spoke for women more privileged than she. But that statement is only accepted because she herself is a member of that oppressed class. Were a member of a historically more privileged group to raise an argument that feminism was not adequately addressing their specific concerns, and so they didn't consider themselves a feminist anymore, they'd be silenced or told, "good riddance".
The oppression olympics happens because you have given the OP's statement more weight just because she was a member of a historically less-privileged group. I don't see why historical or current victimhood should confer moral authority or superior judgement.
First of all, I think a lot of the flack came from your incredibly rude and demeaning tone -- "oppression olympics" definitely seemed more intended to silence than to try to debate the issues honestly.
"how the patriarchy is oppressing me via method A"
See, this is exactly the problem. You identified A as a Group of People -- A is NOT a Method. So the identity is NOT a method. This -- it seems -- is central to what Rachel is trying to get you to understand. An oppressed person is not the same as a form of oppression. I believe the METHOD Rachel in WY is talking about is being inclusive of other opinions. The identity of the person presenting an opinion is irrelevant; what IS relevant is whether or not what is being presented takes into account all the people who have a stake in it.
Your conception of a hierarchy of oppression is frankly simplistic and unrealistic. All of us have multiple affiliations -- gender, race, class, nationality, age, location, etc., etc. -- and depending on the situation, any of these dimensions -- or combinations -- become more or less relevant. The OP wasn't trying to say that she was more oppressed, she was only trying to say that DOMINANT feminism seemed to not adequately address her primary concerns. If one group of women does not feel represented by feminism -- privileged or not -- then we should listen because we are strengthened by their inclusion. Dismissing them and saying that their perceptions of exclusion are irrelevant is entirely counter-productive.
Or to use your overwrought formulation, if only one of EITHER A or AB speaks for C then the other is alienated and C is weakened, so for C to be strengthened, all consitutents (A and AB) must have a say in the agenda of C. :)
If you are frustrated that "oppresion olympians" opinions seem to take precedence, maybe it's because their voices have been underrepresented and we want to be strengthened -- as feminists -- by trying to correct the exclusion.
First of all, I think a lot of the flack came from your incredibly rude and demeaning tone -- "oppression olympics" definitely seemed more intended to silence than to try to debate the issues honestly.
"how the patriarchy is oppressing me via method A"
See, this is exactly the problem. You identified A as a Group of People -- A is NOT a Method. So the identity is NOT a method. An oppressed person is not the same as a form of oppression. I believe the METHOD Rachel in WY is talking about is being inclusive of other opinions. The identity of the person presenting an opinion is irrelevant; what IS relevant is whether or not what is being presented takes into account all the people who have a stake in it.
Your conception of a hierarchy of oppression is frankly simplistic and unrealistic. All of us have multiple affiliations -- gender, race, class, nationality, age, location, etc., etc. -- and depending on the situation, any of these dimensions -- or combinations -- become more or less relevant. The OP wasn't trying to say that she was more oppressed, she was only trying to say that DOMINANT feminism seemed to not adequately address her primary concerns. If one group of women does not feel represented by feminism -- privileged or not -- then we should listen instead of dismiss because we are strengthened by their inclusion.
Or to use your overwrought formulation, if only one of EITHER A or AB speaks for C then the other is alienated and C is weakened, so for C to be strengthened, all consitutents (A and AB) must have a say in the agenda of C. :)
If you are frustrated that "oppresion olympians" opinions seem to take precedence, maybe it's because their voices have been underrepresented and we want to be strengthened -- as feminists -- by trying to correct the exclusion.
Generally speaking the "oppression Olympics" refers to groups trying to outdo each other on how oppressed they are.
I would suggest you read any of the feminist (there are a number of good ones in French feminism) or queer theories texts that outline the methods by which a culture norms the in-groups and "others" the marginalized ones. In the history of feminism, what has often happened is that women have theorized and written about the "othering" of women, but in doing so they only considered their own demographic of women (generally white upper-class, since they were more likely to have free time and access to educational resources, publishers, etc) to the exclusion of others, thus "norming" their own group and othering WoC and lower-class women even further, and within their own group. One great example of this is "the mommy wars," and another is the example of Betty Friedan that I discussed in my earlier comment.
I'm not sure how you would even apply an oppression Olympics model onto this. These groups are not equally oppressed, but rather oppressed in some similar and overlapping ways, and in other distinct ways. To assume that all women share your plight and your views and to only work on behalf of your issues is exclusionary. However, keeping an open mind, being receptive to educational experiences, and nurturing constructive dialogue counteract this kind of problem. In my experience it's not the case that privileged feminists are being told to shut up, but rather are being critiqued for their approach and attitudes. And if somebody claims to speak for you without having a clue what your life and your problems are really like, why wouldn't you fail to identify with them and subsequently reject their ideology?
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, especially after some of the discussions I had with my feminist theory students last semester. It was one of those semesters where the mix of personalities and backgrounds in the class was really great and we developed a comfortable dynamic early on so that everyone contributed a lot to the conversation. I love it when that happens, but sometimes it's really hard to bring about.
So many undergrads have a really hard time thinking of feminism as involving a concern for the environment (my first passion, which drew me into feminism in many ways), queer studies, etc. I understand that they come into a course on feminism with the old mainstream definition of feminism in their heads, but to me it seems so obvious that feminism is about awareness and compassion, and that forms of oppression do not occur in isolation. To think that they do seems like a bizarre way of viewing it to me. How can you, for instance, trace a genealogy of cultural concepts like race and gender and not see the parallels and connections between their social construction and the hierarchical goals of the time period? How can you study environmental ethics and not see that the the patriarchal attitude we hold toward the environment has the same source as the patriarchal attitudes displayed in our treatment of marginalized groups? It seems so clear to me that I don't understand why anyone would think that feminism is not flexible enough to include a concern for both the environment and social justice in all areas.
But I realize that this is not the mainstream view, and that trying to work within a historically exclusionary framework must be frustrating at times. I would advocate for constantly pushing on the definition and boundaries of feminism to change common attitudes and make it more inclusive, because I think that working together and increasing dialogue and cooperation are important goals. But I also appreciate that everyone has to find the niche that works for them. I also think that viewing feminism as one central ideology is problematic, and think it should be viewed as a stance or approach, which can then be applied in many different areas, but that's a topic for a different day.
Great post!
so thankful for you and your words. will be sure to check feministing to see if you've posted something!
Great post, Fabiola.
I second Rachel in WY, "oppression does not occur in isolation." Low-income people and women of color have to deal with economic marginalization and racial discrimination in addition to patriarchy; pointing this out is not an attempt to compete or compare, but simply to recognize that patriarchy touches us all, but it manifests itself differently for different communities. A feminism that connotes or implies an agenda that does not address race and class and does not meaningfully include the voices of low-income people or people of color will seem inadequate to many of us. In the struggle to survive -- as a parent, a low-income person, a woman of color, or whatever -- I can totally understand how the label "feminist" (largely created by people who may not share our most central concerns) just isn't enough.
BUT I think what was great about this post was how it tries to expand something that has seemed exclusive. Fabiola points out how the resilience of her mamas and grandmamas and the work people do in their communities may not be explicitly labeled as "feminist" but all contribute to greater justice for more women.
You add a really important voice to Feministing, and I can't wait for your next post!
Thanks for sending your post Fabiola!
I guess for myself, I am always amazed at how these things feel so cyclical to me. How long have people been talking about this? I can't even imagine and yet it's vastly unsolved, no?
I say I am a feminist when I feel like it, that's right! And I don't feel bad, like I am shaming Audre Lorde or my grandma while doing so.
It's great to see you writing here because I can't say I visit this site often, if at all. And what I have realized for some time is that while most of the things I am involved in are centered around gender and feminism, I feel most idenitified by race and class as it's largely connected to race. To some, that isn't shocking but I am sure to others like some of the folks that left comments here it must be. Otherwise, craziness like the "oppression olympics" wouldn't even come to play in this space.
The part I liked the most about your post was your shout out to your everyday peoples. That is rad and righteous in my opinion especially in a day where so it seems like so many have to bury themselves in a blog to feel radical. I admire these spaces people have made for themselves and their homies and yet feel incredibly depresssed by them at the same time. All in all, it has just inspired me to get out more. All these things are contradictory of course but I would like to be guided by what I feel rather than what "theory" I feel I belong to. Legacies are not theory in my opinion.
As for the comments, I was reminded of many things about why I feel so disconnected from this circle and then again....why I care so little. As terrible as it might sound, I agree with the many noted that people that want others to self-identify are engaging in a losing if not already lost battle! Wake up! Abre los ojos... There is no way you can get people to join your lil team, when you refuse to meet them halfway. And meeting them halfway doesn't mean that you have a mixer for qwoc or put a note on your flier that qwoc are invited. If we are going to have a conversation about de-shaming words, I can think of a million more....
The other thing I have realized and I am sure you have too Fabiola is that there are only so many hours in a day, no? I don't have the time to "convince" white/70's/whatever feminists anything. NOTE: I partially used those terms because I saw them repeated most in the comments. so while, hfs can laugh all they want at how hilarious oppression and the trickery of postmodernism is other folks can go and do something. I can sit around and badmouth all these various types of feminisms and that just equally sucks in my opinion. Either we work together or we don't. Right now, I work where I see need, where I can, where I am inspired to and within my own capactity. Enough of the cool white feminists vs. the old school white feminists. It's all so much craziness and what for?
These kinds of discussions here in the comments make me feel very discouraged and very sad for feminism and for women and minorities and oppressed persons all over the world.
It all boils down to people drawing lines in the sand and creating "us"s and "them"s and dissension that distract from critical issues.
I'm not saying that feminism doesn't need to be more inclusive -- I think the whole bloody WORLD needs to be more aware and inclusive and proactive about sexual and racial differences.
I'm saying that there are some fundamental core issues that are constantly under attack and it makes me sad that sometimes we get so divided over histories and egos that those issues get pushed to the back burner or that people don't want to say they are a "feminist" and the word receives even more of the negative stigma that then sullies the issues!
Domestic violence, sexual assault and rape affect all women of all races of all socioeconomic classes. The treatment of women in the military by their fellow soldiers and the institution itself transcends race and economic standing.
I see a feminism that has diverse interests and callings but at its base cares about the single moms of all races and wants them to earn living wages and have affordable day care and be able to provide for themselves and their children and receive an education if they so wish. I see a feminism that wants to end violence against women, end gendered stereotypes, especially as they apply to children just learning who they are themselves.
The feminism I see and live and experience makes me PROUD at it's efforts at being inclusive. Maybe not always perfect but it sure as hell tries! In fact, I would say that the feminist communities I have seen are WAY more inclusive than any other oppressed groups "community" or "movement" and at least tries to actively embrace as much racial, sexual, religious and other stigmas and oppression and tension and call it out and act against it.
As an institution and a history it is not perfect no - but I think that feminism has enough self-flagulation as it is and I just wish that we could come together on similarities instead of trying to tear eachother down for being different. That goes both ways.
If someone is doing their best to improve their situation and the situations of those around them - they are doing good. We aren't all going to come from the same place or see eye to eye and that is OK!
I guess I should clarify my comments a little bit cuz I went off on a soapbox and, rereading, I don't think I came across the way I wanted to.
I think that your this was very insightful and my comment above was directed at some of the discussion going on in the comment section here not not at the original poster.
I guess it depends on how you view the very word "feminism." I always feel disheartened when it's not embraced by ANY woman on some level because for the good the bad and the ugly, the connotation and social reaction to the word "feminism" has far reaching consequences.
I don't think that by using the term feminism to mean something positive you are somehow betraying a heritage or condoning the more ignorant or self serving aspects. We all have our own private, individual feminisms that have different passions and even different beliefs and I think that that is good!
Language is SO powerful and I just knee jerk and feel sad when this sort of discussion takes off and I feel like the more we argue (this is not directed at one opinion or another but the argueing in general) the harder it is to move forward.
I would love for one day to see an inclusive, powerful, STRONG feminist voice in America that will fight for the common interests and the common respect and equality for ALL women. Maybe that's just my personal feminism though :)
Racism isn't a critical issue?
Loved the post Fabiola and also has a young Hispanic woman (Puerto Rican) I know how you feel about the "feminist" tag. There is so much in it that doesn't relate to me and so much of me I can't (so it feels) bring to it.
Thank you everybody for your comments. Including the outrageous (in my humble opinion it's outrageous) oppression Olympics claim. Though I am not surprised at how many people affirmed that comment.
There is a lot of work and dialogue that needs to happen between folks to move beyond defense/offense, hurt feelings and outrageous claims.
To clarify, not once did I say (or really ever feel more oppressed than thou) and get cozy in victimization to alienate white women and feminists. NO.
I feel like I have to say this: I have privileges too (and white women are oppressed too), I'm a US citizen, college graduate, about to enter graduate school, abled-bodied, have language privileges, have "thin" privilege, and I have to own up to them when someone that's less privileged than me is speaking up, we're working on a common goal, and disagreeing with my values/belief system. That's process and also being open to challenge and change, b/c change is slow and it ain't always pretty.Progress is tenuous. And sometimes, the most sensitive thing to do is to listen and step aside and let others take the lead in a change that doesn't center me.
Lastly most of us here are enjoying a freedom that women in the Gaza Strip, incarcerated women, and homeless women who've lost custody of their kids in downtown skid row are experiencing. I can't assume that my belief system/feminism will capture their most immediate needs and I have to be okay with decentering myself and my needs when that group is working to achieve a right. I don't see that as dividing and conquering, it is complex human relations at work, we are all so different.
I wish I could comment more, but I have to cook dinner, and my daughter is hungry.
Honestly the reason I can never embrace fully mainstream feminism is becasue the minute we as WOC become real and bring our full selves to the table they trot out "oppression olympics" and thus dismiss all that we think, we feel and we are as irrelevant and even counter to the cause of women cuz we aren't the "real" women. It is frustrating and wearying. It is what it is.
But please don't think that a few anti-feminist trolls speak for mainstream feminism. It would be really tragic for you to conclude that based on a few nasty comments here.
Nice, Fabi.
It's not uncommon for an articulate WOC to speak about her life experiences and offer critical feedback about mainstream feminism and then find herself being chased by a few trolls who have the Oppression Olympic rings gripped in their mouths.
Stay strong and keep saying your truth, Fabi.
In regard to "...please don't think that a few anti-feminst trolls speak for mainstream feminism..."
With all due respect, mainstream feminism has said/done more than enough destructive damage to women of color communities on its own without the help of anti-feminist trolls.
I'll be the first to acknowledge the less-than-honorable history of mainstream feminism in many regards. I thought some of my earlier comments reflected that. But, with all due respect, it's pretty harsh to lump all mainstream feminists together with people who are not feminists at all. By referring to all of us as "they," LalaReina assumes that people like hfs speaks for all of us, when in fact he's probably an MRA and a troll, based on comments he's left on other threads. Hfs and doubleb do not speak for me, or for a lot of "mainstream" feminists. I still tend to think that cooperation and constructive, inclusive dialogue are the most productive methods in the end, but I respect your right to reject that view.
Hey LFB, thank you mama. It means so much to me that you came through like that. I speak my truth because of the radical women of color and other allies support online and offline, often times I feel carried symbolically by you all. Rachel in WY, I have seen your back and forth dialoguing, holding your ground and brilliance consistently on here, and that is admirable of you. Thank you!
Mainstream feminism does have a sour taste with many (not all, of course need to make that clear) women of color, I wouldn't read "they" as every single mainstream feminist. I read that as feminists that outcry oppression Olympics. Also, I affirm that cooperation and constructive, inclusive dialogue are indeed the most productive methods, but when folks are ready for that. Sometimes, retracting, silence and healing alone/with other women of color and/or allies is the place of need to be to take care of self. Sometimes the energy output that's required to engage in 'dialoguing' with people that are so set in their worldview is not the best use for time/energy/and sanity purposes. Everyone has their own pace and know what is best for them right?
Sometimes the energy output that's required to engage in 'dialoguing' with people that are so set in their worldview is not the best use for time/energy/and sanity purposes.
I appreciate this fact for sure, and I wouldn't advocate wasting time and energy on people who probably aren't going to change. I myself love a good debate and generally wade in even when it seems like nothing will probably come of it. I'm just always hoping that those who yammer on about the oppression olympics and such don't drown out the ones who are interested in real dialogue and true listening, giving the impression that all mainstream feminists are like that.
I also think that different approaches may work in different contexts. I've been involved in events where many different groups came together to protest or fight legislation that was potentially damaging to all of them, and it was exhilarating to see the potential. But I can also see how the interests and concerns of the various groups could get lost in the shuffle if working together became the norm. And sometimes it's hard to translate the energy and cooperation of an event like that into everyday cooperation and activism. But I also appreciate that people have to be able to work from a position they're comfortable in, and that the same approach won't work for everyone. But I think that it's important to keep communicating and bringing up the issues involved, because it all has to start with increased awareness, so I really appreciate your post!
I think people want the ease of labels which are supposed to convey meaning so we don't have to think, like a label provides an instant definition. We need to be aware that there are not set definitions to a :label".
Fabiola, don't let anyone else define your politics. ^_^ If you are a feminist, you are a feminist. I define feminism as "the radical idea that I am a person".
I don't really understand how women can be hard working and independent, but not feminist. Do their husbands respect them as equals? They must experience prejudice for being female? What name do they give for a person who dislikes sexism?
I think Fabiola's January 8, 2009 comment summed up a very important point about the complexities involved in our struggles for liberation-- they are always multiple, or, if you prefer, plural. And not only are they plural, but they are nuanced-- one woman may be privileged in some ways, and oppressed in other ways... There can simply not be one "Feminist Theory of Everything" that can embrace all of these nuances. We need feminisms. We do not need unity-- we need solidarity.
I am disheartened when women turn away from the label "feminism" because they don't believe it addresses their own concerns or the concerns of a group that they care deeply about. I would strongly advocate abandoning the notion of a Monolithic Feminism, and suggest that, instead of rejecting the label, appropriate it! Make it mean what you think it should mean-- make it relevant to you and your deepest concerns. It's really important to feminism to NOT become a stale and fixed ideology, and for it to continually change and grow in the flux of struggle-- real, on-the-ground struggle. It can't be a mere academic exercise (the fact that some consider "academic feminism" a branch of feminist theory is very problematic, but that's another topic). It's got to emerge from liberation struggles that happen in our homes, in our lives, and in our communities-- whether that means women in prison organizing a sit-in against overcrowding, women in a war-zone stepping out into the streets to demand an end to violence, women in rural India hugging trees to protect their livelihood and the environment, or middle-class Western homemakers struggling to make their lives less isolated and more meaningful.
I think Fabiola's January 8, 2009 comment summed up a very important point about the complexities involved in our struggles for liberation-- they are always multiple, or, if you prefer, plural. And not only are they plural, but they are nuanced-- one woman may be privileged in some ways, and oppressed in other ways... There can simply not be one "Feminist Theory of Everything" that can embrace all of these nuances. We need feminisms. We do not need unity-- we need solidarity.
I am disheartened when women turn away from the label "feminism" because they don't believe it addresses their own concerns or the concerns of a group that they care deeply about. I would strongly advocate abandoning the notion of a Monolithic Feminism, and suggest that, instead of rejecting the label, appropriate it! Make it mean what you think it should mean-- make it relevant to you and your deepest concerns. It's really important to feminism to NOT become a stale and fixed ideology, and for it to continually change and grow in the flux of struggle-- real, on-the-ground struggle. It can't be a mere academic exercise (the fact that some consider "academic feminism" a branch of feminist theory is very problematic, but that's another topic). It's got to emerge from liberation struggles that happen in our homes, in our lives, and in our communities-- whether that means women in prison organizing a sit-in against overcrowding, women in a war-zone stepping out into the streets to demand an end to violence, women in rural India hugging trees to protect their livelihood and the environment, or middle-class Western homemakers struggling to make their lives less isolated and more meaningful.
"Rachel in WY" says:
"How very patriarchal of you."
then says:
"Claiming that your definition is the one true definition and reserving the right to apply it to whomever you will is, indeed, patriarchal."
and:
"This is just my critique of how we "should" use terms."
and:
"And about the term "patriarchy"... I think we've discussed this before. The term patriarchy used to only refer to domination by an authoritarian male, generally the father of a clan,"..."Now the term is used in an even broader way, and encompasses hierarchical and dominant thinking and behavior in general."
I'm not sure about your definitions of feminism(s) and patriachy. But your (unintended?) demonstration of what they aren't and are has an inarguable brilliant clarity.
I generally try to avoid wasting time on trolls, but here goes...
Good work at quoting a bunch of shit out of context. I'm not quite sure where that third quote came from, but if you read carefully (which doesn't seem to be your strong suit) you'll see that doubleb was trying to dictate to us how the term feminism should be used. For a male to come into a feminist blog and try to dictate to the women who are actively involved in feminism how we should use our own vocabulary, from his privileged (and somewhat ignorant) position, is patriarchal. I'm not sure why that's so hard for people like you to understand. You probably think that I'm in no better position to comment on the uses of the word "feminism," and you might be right. However, I have spent a number of years in grad school studying a wide range of feminists writings, historical and current, and I stay current on this wide range of feminists positions, because I teach Feminist Theory, and other courses for the WS department. That doesn't mean I can dictate what "feminism" is either, but it at least puts me in a better position to point out the problem with doubleb's claim.
If, after carefully reading the discourse above, you still have a problem with my responses to doubleb, perhaps you should articulate exactly what it is that's wrong with it, rather than vaguely sniping from the corner of the discussion. However, I would bet that you'll have an issue with any way the terms "feminism" and "patriarchy" are used on a feminist blog, so I suggest you go find a nice MRA to redefine these things for you. They love to redefine our movement and our terminology for us.
The third quote was from your January 9th 4:06 pm post.
now you say:
"Good work at quoting a bunch of shit out of context."
Why you would call your own words a "bunch of shit" I don't know. And it is in context. The context of your opinions on patriarchy and feminism. To say they're out of context is to say any quote is by definition out of context.
I didn't think I was being vague with my first post, but to clarify:
Your own statements on patriarchy and how it should be used...
1.
"Claiming that your definition is the one true definition and reserving the right to apply it to whomever you will is, indeed, patriarchal."
2.
"Now the term is used in an even broader way, and encompasses hierarchical and dominant thinking and behavior in general."
make your opinions seem ironic and self-contradicting because your behavior and thinking are very hierarchical, dominant, authoritative, and privileged.
Just an example, from your post above you demonstrate your authority and hierarchal standing:
"However, I have spent a number of years in grad school studying a wide range of feminists writings, historical and current, and I stay current on this wide range of feminists positions, because I teach Feminist Theory, and other courses for the WS department."
No doubt I could comb through a dialogue you had had with somebody and find a bunch of random quotes, put them together, and claim that you are making an argument that you've never made either. It's pretty easy - look at religion, for example.
So in your opinion, who gets to determine how the concepts and vocabulary of a movement of marginalized people get used? No doubt it's teh white menz, as their perspective is always better and more complete, seeing as how they don't have vaginas or inferior colored skin. And I'm sorry, but doublb is claiming to speak for a lot of people whose writings and thoughts he's never been exposed to. Imposing your own ideas or interpretations over somebody else's thoughts is patriarchal. However, studying the thoughts and positions of a wide range of people in a given movement and then refuting the privileged and patriarchal mis-characterization of them is not. And you may view it as patriarchal, but the practice of actually studying the people you're interested in, and then making a few general statements about them to clarify another person's misunderstanding is part of constructive dialogue. But that's something you're clearly not interested in, so I'm done wasting my time.
P.S. If you really think I'm so terrifically wrong, why haven't you taken up the actual arguments I was making in my earlier comments and refuted my claims? Why aren't you trying to set my feeble lady-brains straight? Oh, because you can't?
A little late here, but I'd just like to point out that I'm not claiming to speak for anyone. I was saying that I have certain conceptions of how terms should be used, and I was discussing with you my motivations for giving those terms the meaning that I do. I fully realize that I am far more ignorant about the larger context of feminist literature than you; and if I had seen a new, novel reason for changing the classic use of those terms that I hadn't considered, I would certainly agree with you. But I wasn't arguing about how the terms are used, I was arguing about how I think they should be used. If I can't disagree with anything about mainstream feminism without being patriarchal then I think that's just an example that the word is broken, because presumably a person with a different biology saying the exact same things as me wouldn't be accused of that.
And on a side note, I can't think of anyone who thinks that fighting patriarchy involves epistemic nihilism. It's a bizarre claim. Can you back it up at all?
"And on a side note, I can't think of anyone who thinks that fighting patriarchy involves epistemic nihilism. It's a bizarre claim. Can you back it up at all?"
It is a bizarre claim and bizarrely worded too. Also bizarre is that I was asked to back it up. Why would you take the embarrasing step of trying to erect such an obvious straw man?...or straw troll I should say.
Bizarre indeed.
Yes, I suppose it does seem bizarre if you don't understand the vocabulary. Claiming that someone who is entirely ignorant in a particular area can make just as valid claims, characterizations, and definitions of the terminology as someone who has studied it for years is indeed bizarre, but that appears to be your position. Of course, historically there have been many attempts to silence people through the patriarchal control of knowledge. However, to go to the opposite extreme and claim that a person's academic background, interest in an area, and time spent studying it makes them no more eligible to characterize the thought in that field or explain how the terminology is used than someone who is entirely ignorant of it is very strange. And I'm not sure that anyone, even the most radical feminists, has ever claimed that the only way to avoid the patriarchal control of knowledge is to resort to epistemic nihilism. But I'd be interested to read their thoughts if you could refer me to them.
"Yes, I suppose it does seem bizarre if you don't understand the vocabulary."
An extremely elitist and authoritative assumtion of you to make.
Asking me to defend "epistemic nihilism" is an ironic stance for you to take since I was pointing out the "epistemic nihilism" (to use your phrase if you like) contained in the contradictions of your posts on patriarchy.
You say:
"Claiming that your definition is the one true definition and reserving the right to apply it to whomever you will is, indeed, patriarchal."
But then you yourself repeatedly go on defining patriarchy, how it should be used, and applying it to people....apparently partly because of their gender:
"For a male to come into a feminist blog and try to dictate to the women who are actively involved in feminism how we should use our own vocabulary, from his privileged (and somewhat ignorant) position, is patriarchal."
and partly because of your heirarchical standing in an institution:
"However, I have spent a number of years in grad school studying a wide range of feminists writings, historical and current, and I stay current on this wide range of feminists positions, because I teach Feminist Theory, and other courses for the WS department."
My point is straight forward.
The picture painted by your thinking, communication style, attacks, and justifications gives a much more clear and concise definition of what patriarchy is than the reasoning (or lack thereof) contained in your actual arguments.
What on earth does epistemic nihilism have to do with contradictions? And my comments were not contradictory, since I was explaining the common usage of the terminology to doublb, who admitted that he was unaware of the way these terms are generally used in the literature. Perhaps you should read through the comments before launching nonsensical attacks.
And if you're not defending epistemic nihilism then your previous comments don't make any sense.
"What on earth does epistemic nihilism have to do with contradictions?"
Well, ok.
The very concept epistemic nihilism itself contains within it a contradiction.
A workable definition of epistemic nihilism is that nothing can be truly known. But to say "nothing can be truly known" is to say de facto "It is known that..." nothing can be truly known.
In this way it relates to your comments on patriarchy because you say:
"Claiming that your definition is the one true definition and reserving the right to apply it to whomever you will is, indeed, patriarchal."
So you're correcting someone on the definition of patriarchy while accusing them of being patriarchal, which by your own definition of patriarchy, makes you yourself patriarchal. Contained in your definition and accusation of patriarchy is a self indictment of it.
Look, obviously you're going to misinterpret my comments anyway you like, so this is a complete waste of my time. But here's one final clarification for the record. I was not correcting doubleb by telling him what the true definition of patriarchy is, but rather educating him on the variety of ways that it (and "feminism") is used. To claim, as he did, that these only have one narrow definition, is incredibly exclusive and silences a large number of feminist writers. Being exclusionary and silencing marginalized groups are two patriarchal activities. However, I did not, as he did, claim to own the ONE TRUE DEFINITION as well as the exclusive rights to label whomever I wanted and exclude whomever I wanted. Noting that there are many other ways that a term is used is quite different, but you can't seem to appreciate the distinction, and I have papers to grade, so I'll have to leave you in your sad, willfully ignorant state.
i think you misunderstood rachel's comment. epistemic nihilism also refers to the denial that being educated or studying something puts you in a better position to explain it or give a general background for a discussion of it. since you think that doubleb's professed ignorance and rachel's education on the topic are irrelevant, you are embracing a form of epistemic nihilism.
but it's really hard to follow you. you pulled all these quotes out that don't seem to be contradictory within the conversation they were having, and then you label her as patriarchal while at the same time seeming to claim that it's patriarchal and contradictory for anyone to give a definition or correct a mistake concerning the current literature. Then you go on to correct her on the definition and usage of "epistemic nihilism." what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? it's kind of unclear and confusing, and i'm not sure how this contributes to the conversation on this topic.
"Then you go on to correct her on the definition and usage of "epistemic nihilism." "
I didn't correct Rachel in WY on the definition. She asked what "epistemic nihilism" has to do with contradiction so I offered an explanation.
"...and then you label her as patriarchal while at the same time seeming to claim that it's patriarchal and contradictory for anyone to give a definition..."
It's not my claim, I was pointing out that her own definition of patriarchy makes that claim. That's the whole point. Just as you took the time to point it out to me (mistaking it for my definition of patriarchy), I pointed it out to her. And that together with her other definition of patriarchy, she infact defines herself as patriarchal.
It's just that if she's going to go around bludgening people with her educational status and authority, she should atleast be more consistent. Perhaps this is a problem with academic feminism and is the reason why there are too few of us willing to be identified as feminists today.
Anyway, to use her phrase from 10 posts ago.
I'm done wasting my time.
It's so strange. The self-contradiction just goes on and on.
you say
"Look, obviously you're going to misinterpret my comments anyway you like"
And yet, if anyone is misinterpreting, you are, because if you go back and look at the posts doubleb never made this claim as you say here:
"However, I did not, as he did, claim to own the ONE TRUE DEFINITION as well as the exclusive rights to label whomever I wanted and exclude whomever I wanted."
What I initially took issue with was your dominantly authoritative approach in the earlier posts with doubleb. I have strong concerns when a person has to rely so heavily on authority and intimidation... and when they wield their authority so obtrusively.