(Cross posted at Daily Kos and featured on Bitch magazine's website)
The following is a incomplete list of my many thoughts, objections, and suggestions concerning the current state of feminism and where we should be headed. All of the following points could be expanded upon. They are listed in no particular order.
1. There must be a widespread understanding that feminism does apply to men. Therefore, men who stand up for feminist issues may, and should, be identified as feminist. It is counterproductive and hypocritical to discuss gender equality while simultaneously creating a double standard towards males who share feminist values.
(I think that the phrase "feminist male" should be dropped, as well. A feminist who identifies as female is never addressed as a "female feminist". A man who advocates for feminist ideology should have the same title as a woman who does the same. By buying into the system of calling a feminist who identifies as male a "male feminist", we reinforce the concept that there is something wrong with being a male AND a feminist.)
2. While transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism, it must understood that not every person is as educated on the topic as some are. Unless clear transphobia (a bigoted attitude transsexuals) is exemplified, ignorance should be contacted with empathy and, bluntly, education. Feminist infighting only hurts the cause.
3. Fox "News", World Net Daily, CNS News, Drudge Report, and The Fox Nation are all unreliable, far-right, anti-feminist sources. While some feminists legitimately speak out against the mainstream media's approach to feminism (which is more times than not negative), we must understand that these sources are beyond saving. While more feminists should be encouraged to appear in these sources arguing for the benefits of feminism, feminists should simultaneously discourage the use of them for anything else.
4. Applying make-up, nail polish, shaving legs, and most other sexist, cosmetic double standards are NOT antitheses to being a feminist - the motivation behind the products are. While these products are all derived from the sexist ideal of a "perfect" woman, many women (and men, for that matter) enjoy these items; there's nothing wrong with that choice. However, there is an inherent problem when there is no choice involved. Feminists should be strongly encouraged to consider the motivations behind their habits but not castigated for living them out.
(This logic applies only to minor, mainstream cosmetics. Feminists should be weary
concerning breast implants, skin whitening creams, and vaginal rejuvenation.)
5. Feminists can be from any religion, race, creed, gender, socioeconomic class, country of origin, sexual orientation, relationship status, height, status of ability, experience or lifestyle. While some religions and lifestyles have very anti-feminist sentiments, accepting individuals of these communities will allow us to spread our message to even the most unlikely repentants. Feminism is about equality, not discrimination.
6. As feminists, we cannot allow sexism or objectification to happen to males, like it has to females. As embarrassing as Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, or Bill O'Reilly and their visions of oppressed, white, straight, Christian males are, we must remember that white, straight, Christian, males need to be treated with the equality they deserve.
7. All women who are politicians, actresses, singers, CEO's, or in any position of power are NOT necessarily feminists. While feminism has enabled most of these women to suceed, that does not mean that they currently identify with it. Sarah Palin, Tila Tequila, Michelle Bachman, and Lady GaGa are not feminists due to their success.
8. Despite the Republican party's strong anti-feminist stances, being a member of the Republican party does not mean that one is inherently anti-feminist. Many economic conservatives hold strong feminist values. It hurts the feminist movement when possibly dedicated people are needlessly excluded.
9. Feminists must remember that men are sometimes the victims of sexual assault; not just women. Also, men are not always the assailant. While, statistically, women are usually raped by men at a much greater level, one must never forget that unconventional sexual assault is still sexual assault.
10. While one can be a feminist and personally oppose abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose is an inherently anti-feminist position. There are many people that are pro-choice, but would personally never condone or undergo an abortion procedure. This is a very controversial subject, however an extremely important one as well; feminists cannot be silent or waver on the issue of abortion.
11. In cases of rape, victim blaming is always unacceptable. However, over time, there multiple cases have occurred in which the "victim" has lied about being raped for personal gain. While these attacks are very, very infrequent, feminism must not be blind to their existence.
12. Feminism must be unafraid to call "fakers" out. Every time that Sarah Palin would call herself a feminist (before promptly contradicting herself), every time Tammy Bruce agrees with Bill O'Reilly, and every time plastic surgery is marketed as a "liberating" thing to do, real feminists must speak up! How can the true message of feminism reach the people if it is drowned out by all of these fake feminists?
13. Making sexist comments against men, in favor of women, is a directly un-feminist action. Whether it be a joke from a progressive, Dana Perino discussing the Mark Sanford affair, or anything else, these comments enforce gender stereotypes and are still sexist.
14. There is nothing wrong with choosing to live in a traditional lifestyle (being a stay-at-home mom, wearing a burqa, having the male in a heterosexual relationship be the breadwinner, etc.), but there are major problems with expecting it and castigating those who do not fit into it. This being said, people who choose to live in traditional lifestyles must respect others choices as well.
15. Reaching out to younger people is one of the most important actions that third-wave feminists need to accomplish. Many myths about feminism - "feminism is irrelevant", "feminists are sexist against men", "feminism is only for women", etc. -are accepted as truth to an alarming number of young people. If feminists hope to keep the movement alive, then young people must have exposure to feminist ideologies.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 15 Aspects That Must Be Recognized In Third-Wave Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15173
Much of this list seems to be giving credibility to the very people who lie about feminism in order to justify their own sexism.
For example, yes, some women lie about sexual assault, but this doesn't happen at a rate any higher than other crimes. Feminism isn't blind to this, and suggesting otherwise is just giving credibility to the people who would have us believe that most victims are making it up.
"While transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism, it must understood that not every person is as educated on the topic as some are. Unless clear transphobia (a bigoted attitude transsexuals) is exemplified, ignorance should be contacted with empathy and, bluntly, education. Feminist infighting only hurts the cause."
As a cis-woman, I am happy to take a little time to education someone who is otherwise feminist, but ignorant about transgenderism or having trouble seeing past their cis-privilege.
I do this because it's the right thing to do, and because it's the feminist thing to do.
Transphobia is inherently anti-feminist, and transphobia of any kind, whether rooted in hate or ignorance, should not be tolerated by feminists.
Transgender people are not responsible for educating cis-people and should not have to put up with other people's ignorance for the sake of "the cause".
Fuck That.
In response to your criticism for Number 11, I made it EXPLICITLY clear that victim blaming or discrediting rape claims of any sort is one-hundred percent unacceptable. However, I have heard "feminists" (not so much on Feministing) discredit cases like the ones I mentioned; such doubt is harmful to the true victims in those cases rare as they may be. Once again, if you pay close attention to my wording, you will see that I demonstrate how unacceptable discrediting REAL cases of rape are.
In response to your criticism of Number 2, you once again misread (intentionally or not) my words. In essence, I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance.
"In response to your criticism for Number 11, I made it EXPLICITLY clear that victim blaming or discrediting rape claims of any sort is one-hundred percent unacceptable. However, I have heard "feminists" (not so much on Feministing) discredit cases like the ones I mentioned; such doubt is harmful to the true victims in those cases rare as they may be. Once again, if you pay close attention to my wording, you will see that I demonstrate how unacceptable discrediting REAL cases of rape are."
I realize that you do not support victim blaming. That wasn't the point I was making.
The point I'm making is this: false accusations of rape happen at no higher a rate than other crimes; however, there is a long history of victim blaming in rape cases, and lawmakers inciting fear of false allegations as an excuse for not supporting legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act.
People making false allegations is of course a problem, but given that false rape allegations don't happen at a higher rate with rape cases, this isn't a specifically feminist issue.
Other than skepticism when someone is accused of making a false rape allegation, which seems warranted given the history and context, I personally have never observed feminists making light of the issue.
Reminding feminists not to be blind to these experiences strikes me as both unnecessary, and of giving an audience to people who use incite fear of false allegations as a political tool.
I singled out 11 as an example, but a lot of the post struck me as giving an audience to people who don't deserve it.
For example, number 6: "6. As feminists, we cannot allow sexism or objectification to happen to males, like it has to females."
We haven't been. This is a non-issue. Sexist attitudes towards men are real problems in society. (stereotypes such as men being stupid and hypersexualized and lacking self control). But for the most part, its been feminists who have been calling this out.
Or 14: "There is nothing wrong with choosing to live in a traditional lifestyle (being a stay-at-home mom, wearing a burqa, having the male in a heterosexual relationship be the breadwinner, etc.)"
Feminists haven't been criticizing people who choose to live traditional life styles. This is a complaint made up by people who would try to force that choice on others, in an effort to cast feminists as intolerant.
"In response to your criticism of Number 2, you once again misread (intentionally or not) my words. In essence, I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance."
You said "transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism." This doesn't have quite the same ring as saying that transphobia and ignorance are unacceptable.
Especially when you then proceed to say that people who refuse to put up with said transphobia and ignorance are "hurting the cause", or that the resulting fighting is "unnecessary and unproductive bickering."
Transgender people (and I would argue their allies as well) have the right to be angry, and they have the right to express this anger without regard to whether it might offend their oppressors.
Yes, calm discussions are more productive at changing society than yelling.
But there is a time and place for calm society changing discussions, and the particular moment a transgender person is suffering from transphobia often isn't it. And its never a transgender persons responsibility to correct other peoples transphobia.
First of all, allow me to repost my own comment on Number 2. I do not feel that it was paid attention to:
"I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance. I did not mean to offend anyone. I personally felt that Number 2 was clear enough. If I was to rewrite this piece, then I would definitely clear that one up. I am sorry for the confusion."
Furthermore, I can understand the anger way more than you give me credit for. But, I believe that a calm, peaceful discussion will win over more people than with, for lack of better terms, "fightin' words". Have I ever called-out ignorance with shouting? Most definitely. Do I still do it? Of course. However, I realize that this approach is far-from the most effective. Do I expect a transperson to calmly educate raging bigots? Not at all - and my point does not say that.
Secondly, all of your others criticisms can more-or-less be summed down into one statement:
"The isolated problems in this list are non-issues that feminists would comment appropriately on, if they became real issues."
However, the problem here is that I have heard many self-identified feminists (on this site, on other sites, in real life, etc.) make the exact mistakes that I am calling out. You said that the feminists you know call these issues out when it is warranted - this is good. However, I have either repeatedly seen these issues either occur uncommented or I see signs of some of these issues occurring in the near feature. If a good number of feminists do call these problems out - then that's great news!
"First of all, allow me to repost my own comment on Number 2. I do not feel that it was paid attention to:
"I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance. I did not mean to offend anyone. I personally felt that Number 2 was clear enough. If I was to rewrite this piece, then I would definitely clear that one up. I am sorry for the confusion."
Furthermore, I can understand the anger way more than you give me credit for. But, I believe that a calm, peaceful discussion will win over more people than with, for lack of better terms, "fightin' words". Have I ever called-out ignorance with shouting? Most definitely. Do I still do it? Of course. However, I realize that this approach is far-from the most effective. Do I expect a transperson to calmly educate raging bigots? Not at all - and my point does not say that."
We're not getting anywhere with this, so I'm going to phrase my criticism another way:
As I said before, calm discussions are more productive at changing society than yelling. We have no disagreement here.
But, why did you single out transphobia to make this point?
The feminist community is hardly free of other problems such as racism, ableism, and classism.
Does your stance apply equally when dealing with well meaning but ignorant people who make racist, ableist or classist remarks?
If so, why are you singling out transphobia to make this point? If not, then you believe that transphobia is more acceptable than racism, ableism and classism. This is unacceptable.
Transgender people (and I would argue their allies as well) have the right to be angry, and they have the right to express this anger without regard to whether it might offend their oppressors.
Thank you for this.
Not a bad list, however it is a bit Americacentric. Lots of people outside the USA are affected by different political organizations and have different media organizations which are not feminist. Is there someway that it can be worded to include us on these issues.
For example, instead of number 8 singling out the Republican party, could you have "right-wing organizations" or something similar; for number 3 you could have written "right-wing media".
In retrospect, you are very correct! However, I did post these to two American websites - Daily Kos and Feministing. When I touch on a similar issue again in my writing, I will be sure to remember this point. Thanks for commenting!
In retrospect, you are very correct! However, I did post these to two American websites - Daily Kos and Feministing. When I touch on a similar issue again in my writing, I will be sure to remember this point. Thanks for commenting!
My apologies for the double post.
I like almost all of your list, except #2. I'm pretty sure in a little while someone's going to log in and flame you hardcore for it, so I'll just cut to the constructive criticism.
You're not acknowledging that lack of education on trans rights is a PROBLEM with current mainstream feminism, and you come off as wanting to sweep this problem under the rug. Part of the solution needs to be trans allies taking a more active stance about making trans issues mainstream, instead of waiting for the 1000th "HAY D00DZ WAT IS CIS" on every trans thread or the inevitable "But the trans women will rape us!!!111cos(0)" every time feminists fall for the bathroom panic scare, and then starting a pointless flame war that makes everyone forget what was being talked about in the first place.
First of all, thank you for not "flaming" - I understand that the issue evokes many emotions. Secondly, I agree with you. If I had to rewrite this list, I definitely would have made Number 2 more clear. Allow me to quote what I responded with above:
"In essence, I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance."
I don't believe in playing feminist police. I think that a woman who is personally anti-abortion cannot in good faith ignore that other women have abortions, and I don't believe that will make her not a feminist.
(For the record: I am very, very, very pro-choice. And yes, I know this argument is going to get ridiculous and massive and boring, because it always does.)
A lot of radical feminists say things that sound completely anti-feminist to me, particularly when they're talking about sex and BDSM. The lack of respect for consent is astounding. I don't go around confiscating their feminist cards, because I do believe that they care about women and think that they're helping, even if they're doing so in a really stupid way. And If I'm going to let Twisty off the hook, I'll give the pro-life feminists some leeway.
I do completely agree with you about "feminist male" though.
Firstly, thank you for your support for Number 1 - it's a topic that is too often swept under the rug.
However, I do disagree with you on your last few points - I believe that condemning the right to abortion and the ability to intelligently consent directly contradicts feminism. I understand that most of both anti-choice ("pro-life") advocates and "radical feminists" care about women - but "caring about women" does not equate to feminism.
Allow me to clarify the last part of my statement - only "caring about women" does not solely equate to feminism. A person could completely care about women - but have little to no respect for men. This would, obviously, be un-feminist.
I agree that "caring about women" doesn't make one a feminist. What I meant was that I see that these people are aware of inequality between the genders and want to see it end. Does that make more sense?
I see what you're getting at, however I disagree that what they are doing will actually end the inequality.
I think in the case of abortion at least, respect for life trumps feminism. And there are lots of feminists who disagree on what exactly helps women.
Anti-BDSM feminists think that we can help all women by not having kinky sex, and that's all kinds of stupid and displays massive disregard for female autonomy. But in most cases, anti-BDSM feminists have spent time reading about feminism, thinking about feminism, pointing out sexism to friends, protesting for various women's issues and so on and so forth. Being anti-BDSM (or anti-abortion) doesn't erase all that.
But, once again, that doesn't make these actions (by either group) "feminist" ones, which is what we're discussing. However, I see where you're coming from.
I thought we were discussing whether a woman can be a feminist and pro-life -- specifically, pro-life and in favor of banning abortion -- and I think it's possible.
As I said before, I think most pro-life feminists believe that the right to life trumps feminism, which I understand. For me, free speech is always going to be more important than women's rights.
No one is questioning free speech - there are many, many things people can say, that would be classified under free speech, that would be very anti-feminist.
I'm using free speech as an example.
I support the right to say horribly anti-feminist things, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a feminist. In the same way, someone can fight against legalized abortion while still calling themselves a feminist.
I still disagree; I respect the right of people to say horrible and anti-feminist things as well. Opposing a woman's right to abortion would classify as horrible and anti-feminist.
I agree, but:
If you see a fetus as a full human being, than abortion is murder, and there's no way around that. No matter how much you care about women owning their bodies and all that jazz, you can't accept legalized murder.
Despite all the sexist bullshit found in anti-abortion circles, there are still some people for whom the issue has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or gender.
Well, I don't really want to get into the nitty-gritty details of abortion...
That's all well and fine, but if you're not willing to get into the nitty gritty you can't go around playing feminist police.
Fair enough; I guess what I was trying to say, is that my list is not only about abortion. That aside, I still stand by what I said. Their hearts might be in the right place, but their actions are not.
I saw this post on thefbomb. I like most of it. I really like number 10. It always confuses me when I see people who are anti-choice who claim to be feminists. To me, that's like saying "I don't think that women should have the right to vote, but I'm still a feminist". Those people are against womens basic rights. That is one situation where I'm going to tell the person that they are not a feminist.
However, I don't always do that. I don't believe that feminism should be an exclusive club that's limited to people that agree with me 100% on every issue. For example, I think that sex work and modeling is contrary to the goal of feminism, because I believe it contributes to the objectification of women. However, I'd never intentionally disrespect someone for being a sex worker or tell them that they are not a feminist for it. I'm generally very open about who I consider to be a feminist.
No, I agree - all feminists don't have to agree on every topic. However, in my opinion, I believe that there are several key issues that are not debatable.
Couple things.
I'm going to go in order of how they come to me when I read it, not in number order.
Thank you for #9. It's something which people often forget and don't realize they're broad-brushing. Men are sexually assaulted and women can be the perpetrators of sexual assault. It may not be as common, but those instances do happen.
Regarding #4, I disagree slightly. While I understand where your position originates (societal beauty standards and the horrifying things people do to meet them), I think it's not whether it's done but why it's done that's the important part. Just like with your lifestyle point -- if you choose to do it, do it for you. However, I agree with where your position is coming from whole heartedly.
Regarding #2, I'm not exactly sure what to think. On the one hand, I am supportive of your giving the benefit of the doubt; on the other, as someone who is one of those allies, it gets annoying and cumbersome to always have to be the one to say "this is this, that is that, can we move on now, please and talk about root issues?" especially when the this and the that are always the same. As a beginning dialogue it's good, but after a couple conversations, you should be able to educate yourself on issues enough to not sound like a complete idiot. You may mispeak, but if you own your mistakes and ask for clarification, it's all good.
Number 6 confuses me because I really don't understand the impetus of the problem with it. Is there a trend as objectifying men like women have been that I'm unaware of? Should I be more aware of it being a man? I'm just a bit confused.
Oh! and #10 is awesome. It separates the idea of personal choice from social philosophy. While you believe people should be able to choose one things, you would not choose it for yourself. I totally agree with this one and I think it's a really important distinction to make.
Feminism fights for the Any-Woman to be able to do as she chooses. That includes choosing to not enact a right gained.
In response to your comment concerning number 6, I think there might be a problem in the future that needs to be spearheaded. Take a look at the websites of the uber-popular teenage clothing stores "Hollister" and "Abercrombie & Fitch". It's not a terribly big deal at this point in time - but there is certainly a growing problem with males' body images.
Ok. I can get behind that. :-)
Thank you very much!
(And you thanks for defending me. =] )
*thank you
I'm a commenter who calls it like I see it.
It's probably given me a reputation 'round these parts, but that's hardly been something I've been worried about.
There's nothing wrong with telling it like you see it. =]
I read this with a smile on my face as I knew it was satire. But shock horror when I got to the bottom I see actual comments that look real.
Please tell me this post is satirical and you are all playing along!
That's very rude. I'm assuming that you will elaborate.
I think others are being over polite in their criticism. You have a very poor understanding of feminism and have demonstrated it in your post above about things we 'must recognise'.
I took the post as a general "these I see as some things going on which I feel need to be addressed" and pretty tame and pleasant. There's no need to be aggressive with someone who's not aggressively asserting their opinions on me. I'm being nice because, honestly, this post is really nice, as well.
If it was something along the lines of "Look, third wavers, do me an effing favor and take these in", it would be a very different reaction and much more assertive/aggressive.
This post also addresses a lot of issues which have come up here. Most of us are very young (and I'm making no gender/class/race assumptions as to your identifications) and would qualify into third-wave feminism with our beliefs.
Really, it comes off as a quick and dirty guide to discussing issues which are muddy and complicated.
Can you elaborate on this? I think the list is fairly reasonable. Some of the language can be improved, but the general gist is good.
What do you find wrong with it specifically?
So... are you a second-waver or is there only one wave of feminism; your wave?
If cis feminists want to respond to the ignorance of other cis people though education coupled with a sense of empathy, then by all means, please feel free.
However—and I'm repeating something that has been said over and over again—it is not trans people's responsibility to educate cis people. We are faced with the same ignorance over and over again. This ignorance is widespread and consequently, deeply limits and endangers our lives. The scope of this ignorance and it's consequences are both frightening and infuriating. After a while, many trans people loose their ability to feel empathy with yet another ignorant person making yet another ignorant comment who represents one of thousands of ignorant people encountered during the course of a life time.
In short, the ability to consistently express a sense of empathy for cis people who are ignorant is made possible by the privilege of not being effected by this ignorance. If you are trans, you can't escape the effects of this ignorance. It's everywhere and it's quite personal. After a while, it gets really, really old. So, if a trans person looses it and flames a person for making the an ignorant comment that has been made on countless other occasions, I really can't blame the person for their "lack of empathy."
I agree that empathy can serve as a very important tool in educating people. Nevertheless, assuming you—the author—are a cis person, it sounds incredibly privileged to ask members of an oppressed group to express empathy for those whose ignorant beliefs serve to limit their very survival. Suppose a man says, "Well, many guys are very ignorant about the issues that women face. Consequently, I think women should respond to men's ignorance with empathy and a willingness to educate." How would that comment be received by feminist women?
While your suggestion in item #2 might be a practical response in combating ignorance, ironically, its phrasing lacks empathy in acknowledging the experiences of trans people in dealing with widespread ignorance. I'm assuming that when you crafted item #2, you primarily had cis feminists in mind. If that's the case, then fine. However, you need to make that clear. I also have to point out that forgetting to consider trans people's response to #2 is an example of unconsciously excluding trans people from the discussion. That's a problem.
In response to Number 2:
"I'm trying to explain that not everyone is as educated on the topic as some are. Those who are educated should not be driven to assume bigotry on the part of others - it leads to unnecessary and unproductive bickering. My writing also made it VERY clear that transphobia is unacceptable and so is ignorance. I did not mean to offend anyone. I personally felt that Number 2 was clear enough. If I was to rewrite this piece, then I would definitely clear that one up. I am sorry for the confusion."
While I admire the tactful and respectful tone of your response, I was a little shocked to assume my gender. What if I was a cis male or a transfemale? What if I am a transmale?
I also got an impression of cis privilege (though unintentional, which is why I chose not to call it quite as out front as timberwraith). It could be writing to your intended audience, however the lack of discussion for people who make the comments -- who still may well be third wavers, but uneducated -- getting flamed tinged it into the cis gender perspective. Again, this may be the perspective you're writing for, but not your personal identification, but I had much the same impression.
I don't think it lessens your idea of responding with empathy, but I think it's best designed for the ally and not the oppressed. Any time an oppressed group is told to be empathetic, it's inherently problematic.
Just an FYI: trans female/male, not transfemale/male.
I followed the link in your alias, perused the content of your blog, and then intuited that you are most likely not transgender. That's not 100% effective, but I've read enough transgender blogs over the years to be pretty good at making an educated guess based upon the content of the blog. I did say that this was an assumption on my part:
Nevertheless, assuming you—the author—are a cis person...If you are transgender and want to encourage trans people to show more empathy and a greater readiness to engage in education, then you need to present item #2 in that context. Even so, you will need to address many of the problems I mentioned, as other trans people will most likely confront you on those issues, regardless of your being transgender.
I do not know whether you identify as a woman or a man. I do not believe that my response indicates an assumption one way or another. I penned the response under the assumption that you identify as a feminist, but I do not personally limit the label feminist to women only.
Fair enough; I misread your comment. For that, I apologize.
There are a lot of little problems I have with this list, while I agree with it in general. And there are a lot of little problems other people have with this list while still agreeing to the bulk of its contents. I think that is reflective of the big problem, which is that:
Appointing oneself the arbiter of a feminist consensus = not a feminist act.
Regarding the discussion about cis feminists' ignorance about trans issues:
I am a queer cis woman, and I would truly like to be more educated and empathetic about issues facing transfolk. I really truly respect what several of you have been saying about it not being transfolks' responsibility to educate cis folk about your experiences... I have to ask the dumb question: so how are well-meaning but ignorant people like me supposed to get educated?
All men knows lots women, and anyone who's paying attention knows a number of queer folk. But to be honest, I have encountered relatively few folk in my life who have identified as trans, and have not had super-close personal relationships with anyone who identified as trans. I'm certainly more educated than the general population as I've participated in queer/trans rights groups and activities, and I obviously follow groups like this one and do my own independent reading. But how are cis folks supposed to learn about and be empathetic about trans folks if they don't somehow share their experiences, whether online, person-to-person, etc? I can't presume to know how you feel and what you experiences you've had, so how can I be empathetic and educated unless at some point a transperson is willing to help me? That doesn't mean every transperson has to share their experiences all the time, or has to spend effort calling me out on every mistake I make if they don't have the energy, or has to take responsibility for "educating" every cis person they come across, or does not have the right to get angry and frustrated at my ignorance... but you get my drift.
So yeah, I agree with the OP that ignorance about trans issues is not the same as transphobia, and that at least among feminist circles, we should all try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and work to educate each other when we can.
Thank you! That's really the message I was trying to convey.
That being said, I just want to clarify: people should try to educate themselves on their own.
There really is no mystery in this. Since you are commenting on this blog, then obviously you have internet access. Hence, treat this topic as you would any other topic that is discussed in the blog world:
1) Follow the links embedded in trans commenters' aliases. Read their blogs.
2) Follow the links in their blogrolls. Read those blogs and webpages as well.
3) If any of the aforementioned blogs contain 101 articles and links, pay particularly close attention to those articles.
4) Read books written by trans people. You can find recommendations on various transgender blogs.
5) Google.
There are plenty of transgender blogs out there, waiting to be read. If you click on my alias, you can find many of the things I mentioned at my blog.
My advice is to do a lot of reading before you actively engage in discussions on this topic. The more you know, the less likely it will be that your comments and inquiries will trigger heated exchanges with trans people.
I think that we agree on one thing: people should do a little research by themselves before asking a question. I have seen that "what-does-'cis'-mean" question WAY more than I should have. A quick Google search can prove fruitful.
However, here's where we disagree: I think that the fight for transgender rights will be lost if we expect every person "to do a lot of reading before" commenting on the issue. The fact of the matter is, average people will not usually encounter transgender media on their own (this is a problem - but an entirely different conversation), therefore cannot be expected to do extensive research on the topic before asking questions. Some questions will be good, some will be bad, some will be asked over and over again, and some will be offensive. These conversations, some aggravating at best, will benefit everyone in the end. I'm not quite sure how snapping at newcomers will help anyone.
Now, as I alluded to above, no one is perfect. Sometimes innocent questions rub people the wrong way. Have I ever yelled at a person? Yes. Have I ever snapped at someone asking an innocent, but offensive question? Of course. Should it be the sole responsibility of a minority to inform the masses? Not in the least bit.
After seeing Feministing threads chew up and spit out countless transgender commenters—many who now refuse to visit this website or now comment very little—I firmly stand by what I said above. Feministing has developed quite a negative reputation among trans bloggers, largely because of the persistent ignorance of its commenters combined with poor moderation by the blog owners. There won't be anyone around to do the educating, if cis people here at Feministing continue to alienate trans people at the current rate. The solution to that problem lies with the cis folk who run this blog and the cis allies who participate in the comment threads. If y'all want to be allies, then step up to the plate and do the work.
I comment here far less than I used to, largely because I'm tired of interacting with never ending walls of ignorance. I'm willing to participate in educating people, but not in an environment like this one. If cis people here at this blog are serious about changing those kinds of negative conditions, then they need to educate themselves—and each other—without the expectation that trans people are going to hold their hand through the process.
By the way, I'm curious: are you transgender or not? It's interesting that you haven't stated one way or the other. Are you still trying to figure that out (no offense—that's a serious question) or is there some other reason? I'm pretty upfront about being transgender when I write stuff online and of course, you can always go to my blog and learn about who I am. One of the reasons that I'm upfront about being trans is that it helps in course of educating people. After all, you can't openly draw on personal stories if you aren't upfront about who you are. So, if you are transgender and you are feeling so positive about educating cis people, why do you not come out to us?
There's a middle ground between "lots of reading" and "figure out the basics on your own." It takes maybe an hour of time to figure out enough not to offend anyone.
Right, I see that several people are telling me to read books, blogs, and materials from trans organizations. This is exactly the point I was making -- in order for those resources to exist at all, at some point trans people are telling their stories, analyzing their experiences, and sharing them with the world. Someone has to write the blog, write the book, create the organization, etc. Those are vehicles of communication between transfolk and cisfolk, so that we cisfolk can learn about your experiences and try to be supportive allies without having to bug every transperson we come across on the internet or in real life with "omg what does cis mean?!"
I think we agree, sorry if I was not clear.
Well said!
As to the probing, irrelevant, and inappropriate question concerning my genderL I am a cis, trans ally. I do not think this changes anything about my article, points of view, comments, or ideas.
"I have to ask the dumb question: so how are well-meaning but ignorant people like me supposed to get educated?"
Wikipedia
Books
Blogs
Transgender Organizations
Anyone with access to the internet should have no trouble.
Mhm..I am wondering about this: "Feminists should be weary concerning breast implants, skin whitening creams, and vaginal rejuvenation."
I consider myself a feminist and am also bisexual AND have considered getting breast implants. No, I am not doing it for men or to be deemed more attractive by potential partners. Both my male and female partners have no problem with my breasts and I wouldn't care if they did. But ever since I was a little girl I wanted to have big breasts, and no, not because I was socialized into thinking that (I grew up in Honduras and most women, in real life and in the media, have small breasts and that is the norm)but rather because it has always turned me on to think I have large, full breasts. Honestly even if I were to become exclusively a lesbian rather than bi I'd still want breast implants. I have not gotten them because of the money and a low pain threshold. So, is it anti-feminist of me to want to get large breasts??
I do not think that the statement described these cosmetic amenities as anti-feminist - only that feminists must be weary about them. There is a big difference. If I felt as if all people considering these were as aware and informed as you appear to be, then there would be no problem. However, do you really want a culture that expects or demands these procedures to be taken by people? I would hope not.
So, to answer your question, no, wanting to get breast implants, for the reasons you provided, is not anti-feminist.
I agree with you on definitely not wanting a culture that encourages cosmetic procedures (esp. for women) by appealing to their (real or assumed)self-image insecurities and/or the belief that we are valued solely on our looks. I definitely think our current culture propagates plastic surgery mostly for these reasons, and that really sucks.
yes, by all means let's expend serious effort to protect the social standing of white hetero men (should we add rich?). keeping in mind of couse that they'd run screaming for the hills if threatened with being placed on an "equal" plane as the rest of us.
Yeah, reading this list I was like "Since when was feminism all about men". Is it time to start another movement? I wouldn't co-opt "womanism"... how about "chickism", a social, political and philosophical movement dealing with the concerns of chicks as a class and, as an activist movement, aimed at dismantling the dudely structures of society that keep chicks down.
Since apparently feminism is taken.
Exactly. Men cannot be feminists. It's like saying children can ban sweets. Rubbish!
As far as I can see the feminist movement is dead. This site is a result.
I should have said, the feminist movement is dead in western neo-liberal nations.
Plenty of evidence of feminist movements in other countries around the world.
Let's try to keep comments and criticism constructive.
Or, you know, we could consider treating everyone like an actual person, instead of making arbitrary judgments on who deserves equality.
Agreed.
the thing about equality is that for oppressed peoples to gain power, the oppressors lose some. So, "protecting white hetero men's equality" can only mean two things; either protect their privileges, or let them actually experience equality without the help of the patriarchy, which of course no non-feminist, white, straight guy would equate with "protection".
Right, because sexist words like "chick" are synonymous with "feminist". c'mon.