no subject

[taimatsu]

I have just had my first lecture of the year - the introductory session for Women's Writing 1. This involved defining feminism, mostly, and the horrible but not unexpected discovery that about six of the 60 predominantly female people in the room defined themselves as feminist. Gaaaaah!

Also Gaaaaaah was the thing where the lecturer was talking about an essay on basic feminism which discusses the terms 'feminist' 'female' and 'feminine', and dismissed biological sex - 'female' - as binary 'apart from a few hermaphrodites and things'. I was so cross. I know a variety of people who are women but for whom the biological clues to 'sex' are not straightforwardly female - whether that's because of a chromosomal disorder, or physical intersexedness, or being transsexual/transgendered. The lecturer has no idea if one of those people is in the room, and I was cross that she made them invisible and used what I suspect is rather an inappropriate term for the biologically different. She's my seminar leader so I might be able to tackle her about it tomorrow, though it's tricky when I'm not in that group myself.

Similarly, she was talking about the prevailing image of feminism as all about 'hairy humourless lesbians'; while it's *true* that that's what people think, what if I *had* been a hairy lesbian? It really sounded very dismissive, and her talk didn't make any compensatory mention of the contributions lesbian community has made to the women's movement.

I think I sound way too 'right-on' here, but then the whole point of the lecture was to make the girls who go 'eww, I'm not a feminist!' think again. Maybe it ought to make me think again about saying 'erk, I'm not one of those radical queer folks!' (Actually, I think I'm not, but I get the feeling if I make the fairly basic points above about sex and gender non-hegemony, I'll be thought of as one.)

It makes me nervous to think of saying any of this in a seminar, but I want that to be a safe(r) space where I can talk about, you know, lesbians and queer politics if it's relevant without being afraid to come out. *sigh*

Thoughts most welcome. Anyone got any experience with feminist literary criticism or feminist writing in general? I'm making this public so I can link to it in a community.

Comments

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Could I just ask what's wrong with not self-defining as a feminist? I don't, I stopped doing so years ago when I realised that it was far too restrictive for what I believed. If people don't want to call themselves feminists, then surely that's up to them?

[taimatsu]

I don't interpret 'feminism' as a restrictive political position, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. The position the lecturer took was that if you believe in, essentially, equal rights for women, you are quite probably a feminist.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

This involved defining feminism, mostly, and the horrible but not unexpected discovery that about six of the 60 predominantly female people in the room defined themselves as feminist. Gaaaaah!

I don't think you should be too surprised here. A word's meaning doesn't consist solely of what it ought to mean. Feminism has enough negative connotations that I can completely understand why a woman might choose not to label herself as such. (And indeed I'd never refer to myself as a feminist for exactly that reason.)

It doesn't follow from this that the remaining 54 don't care about women's rights, gender discrimination, the role of women in society and so on.

[taimatsu]

No, I said it wasn't unexpected - I certainly wasn't surprised.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Quite so, although my response to those connotations is explicitly to refer to myself as a feminist, which puts it up for debate.

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

The problem is that feminist writing is not a homogeneous whole. Unsurprisingly because there is no unique female experience, there is no standardised feminist either. Some are quite reasonable and some are.. not. Unfortunately the people that shout the loudest tend to be noticed more, and they tend to be the ones that only see one side of the argument.

Feminism is, to my mind, a good thing provided that the proponent realises reality is a bit more complex than an 'us vs them' situation, that you're not entitled to something simply because you don't like the way things currently are and that many women have different perspectives and life experiences.

Unfortunately gender is still an area that people are not comfortable with non binary definitions, and there's quite some way to go on it.

[taimatsu]

Hmm, no, *gender* being non-binary is kind of okay, as that's part of the point of feminism - that one should not have to conform to the social construct of masculinity or femininity which corresponds to your assumed biological sex. People are (just) beginning to grasp that it's okay to be a 'career-focussed' woman as well as a 'housewife' woman. *Sex* is the area (IMO) where people really really aren't comfortable with non-binary definitions.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I think I sound way too 'right-on' here

I don't think so at all, I think these points are entirely valid. Using language so carelessly and potentially hurtfully is inexcusable in a lecturer in women's writing, for goodness's sake. I got very annoyed with her as I was reading your account :-(

it's tricky when I'm not in that group myself

That shouldn't make any difference if it's just about alerting her to stuff, although I can see why you fear it might.

I get the feeling if I make the fairly basic points above about sex and gender non-hegemony, I'll be thought of as one

I would hope not... but even so, there might be someone in the class who feels even more threatened by it than you do, so you'd be bravely speaking up for her at least.

THe irritating thing is that if it was something with a more visible signifier, like colour, these awkward situations wouldn't even arise.

[taimatsu]

I'm struggling to work out exactly what I am going to say to her and when. I don't think I can do it in the seminar itself as it will hold up the discussion of the book in favour of a digression which probably doesn't relate to the work of Aphra Behn much at all! Maybe I could talk to her after the seminar, or email her and say I would like to have a word with her about her lecture...

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

I used to run a women's studies programme. I have many, many thoughts.

The first here is that the lecturer might benefit from reading Delphy... and Wittig. And a few others.

Feminism should be refered to as feminisms, I always think - as there's no accepted definition. The gamut goes from people on one end who really do follow Solanis, to those on the other who are what might be called equality feminists, working through the current system - eg from those who want to tear down the system as irretrivable (or just absent themselves from it) to those who work to change it.

"Feminist" may be a term that is becoming useless, although I proudly proclaim myself to be a feminist research and to follow feminist research ethics...

Um, I could go on about this at huge length, as is probably obvious. I can try to be more specific, if you like...? Grab me on gmail?

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Any references you could recommend?

I'm much in agreement with what you say here, but could do with educating myself a bit better on the subject. (Particularly interested in the issue of differing views within modern feminism concerning use and meaning of ther term.)

[taimatsu]

She did make the point about 'feminisms', in the context of there being vastly different priorities for women in different cultures and contexts.

[taimatsu]

Tell me about Solanis?

I will try to talk to you about it - might well email :)

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Similarly, she was talking about the prevailing image of feminism as all about 'hairy humourless lesbians'; while it's *true* that that's what people think, what if I *had* been a hairy lesbian?

Then you would have proved her stereotype wrong by telling an amusing joke, maybe?

[taimatsu]

*grin* Mmmm, maybe :)

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

Urgh, I'd have been very cross too.

And there's nothing wrong with being "right on". *grins*

[mrkgnao.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...this is interesting.

I don't think I define myself as a feminist but I kind of go out of my way to avoid defining myself as anything. I think I'd like to hope that my general opinions about equal rights for everything (hurrah!) includes women in that... I guess feminism still exists because it kind of doesn't.

Ah. Mrkgnao: simplifying issues before breakfast.

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

I have said for many years that the only lable I'm *really* comfortable with is, "Hand wash, warm".

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Regardless of the content, your lecturer's tone and vocabulary seem remarkably sloppy for academic discourse.

[taimatsu]

Yes. I think I am going to have to talk to her about it all.

She made a point about academic discourse, actually, in the context of gendered language - since for centuries all scholars whose work was accepted as such were male, does that mean that academic language and the academic style are constructed as male and disadvantage women? Woolf apparently writes (in A Room Of One's Own - haven't read it yet) about women using essentially a 'foreign language'. Could Lecturer's sloppiness be a covert protest against male-privileged discourse? I'm still not keen to put up with it even if it is. Bah!

[nannyo.livejournal.com]

I define very strongly as a feminis, and agree with what elise said above. I think I would try and raise your lecturer's use of language with her, either privately, or in a seminar situation. I bet you aren't the only person feeling put out by her language, and surely if you are discussing literature of any sort, then use of language is an important part of analysis.

I also think that your reasoned and polite objections as outlined here won't put you in any sort of "raving loony" camp.
Good luck with it!
N.

[taimatsu]

I worry that I might be the only person feeling put out by her language! Maybe I have too low an opinion of my fellow students :/

[thinkstoomuch.livejournal.com]

I would have liked to have sat in on that lecture. I'd say I'm a feminist, but I don't go out of my way to bring the point up, and I'd always explain that I mean it in the sense than women and men should have equal rights. I think it's become a word burdened with too many meanings, some of which seem contradictory to me.

In the culture I am a part of, the legal system does a good job of enabling sexual equality, and the cultural reality isn't lagging very far behind. So, I'm mostly of the opinion that it's time to focus on equal rights for all, and that drawing particular attention to one side of an inequality isn't needed any more - there is no real term for the opposite of feminist! Preventing sexism is the real goal, I would say. Unlike one of your earlier commenteers, I would say that because I am an egalitarian, I am of course a feminist (and a masculinist, whatever).

So, I would rarely use the term feminist, because it makes me uncomfortable. Partly because I think it draws attention needlessly to one part of a larger issue, but also partly because I've drawn criticism in the past from the standard angry-shouty feminists for daring to describe myself as one... Of course, I have also been called a chauvinist male for *not* calling myself a feminist! The angry-shouties are not helping the cause...

Gender / sex is a tangled nest. I like things to be cleanly and simply defined. It's a personal preference that the world is not very accomodating of. My very rough description of my views (as this post is getting overly long) is that gender is a term used in so many different ways that it is close to meaningless, and perhaps futile to attempt to define - I have essentially given up, as anyone I have met that wants to talk about gender at length or in depth has turned out to be an angry-shouty. Re sex, I like to keep this nice and separate from gender, because then it's much simpler. This also seems appropriate to me, because sex is pretty well defined. If your lecturer was being dismissive, that doesn't seem helpful - but still, sex is close to binary. I would say there is a very strong case that sex is trying (standard anthropomorphising of evolution sense) to be binary, unlike gender / sexual orientation, where there is a strong case that evolution has given us a spectrum. You can make a list of standard male and female biological traits, and the vast majority of people will have all the traits from one list only. I've never seen a definition of gender(s) where that was true, and I wouldn't expect to.

Perhaps your lecturer was implicitly defining feminism as a movement only for biological females? It would make some sense, and would seem part of a good argument that an explicitally egalitarian stance regardless of sex or gender makes more sense. Could your lecturer be viewing feminism itself as dismissive of (as you put it) those not straightforwardly female?

[taimatsu]

Sex is indeed close to binary, but it's still difficult when there might be someone in that room who is one of those 'hermaphrodites and things' and she'd have no clue. I want her to get a grip on that.

As gender can be considered a social construct, in the past it *was* the case that you could write a list of 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits and expect the men you knew to display traits from the M list only and vice versa. like 'emotional/sensitive/nurturing' vs 'calm/rational/decisive'. That's not how people *are*, it's how they learn to be because it's expected of them. That has changed a lot these days, and those lists don't work like that any more, but there's still some way to go. More later, I have another lecture in five minutes.

[medland.livejournal.com]

You should friend bluestocking7. She teaches gender studies and related stuff (anthropology I think), is gay and always has something interesting to say on the subject.

[medland.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I'd call myself a feminist. I don't know enough about it. I know I didn't join the big feminism comm here because in their userinfo they claim not to believe that women can be prejudiced against men - I don't believe that AT ALL so didn't join. I believe in equal rights for everyone. I do believe that women and men are different though and therefore have different needs/wants/desires and that we should treat them according to those. Different but equal. I guess I haven't figured out yet how to tell what those differences are without painting everyone with the same brush.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I'm happy with the "seeks equality between men and women" definition; all the people who hold that view would presumably be masculinists if the shoe were on the other foot.

I'm also happy with it as a descriptive term, not (just) a defining one; if I say "feminist" I mean everyone who holds that view, not just those who hold that view and call themselves that.

Of the people who think "feminist" means something else, I'm hard put to think of significantly many people who call themselves feminists but have some other definition, yet you can barely utter the word without someone popping up who denies they're a feminist because they think it means something else, yet also holds the view I call feminism.

(Of course, maybe this last is just a fact about my experience, rather than about the world.)

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

I've seen an alternative definition that includes working/fighting for those rights. I'm sometimes unsure whether to call myself a feminist or not, because I don't do much fighting for equality. I do believe in it though.

[natsukaze.livejournal.com]

a few hermaphrodites and things

Utterly charming!

[taimatsu]

*Exactly*. I was so annoyed. Sure, she might have needed to simplify things, but it's not hard to insert a disclaimer and be polite and appropriate in her language.

[andrewwyld.livejournal.com]

I notice you mention nothing about humourlessness.  I know a couple of very funny hairy lesbians.  I personally don't like humourless people, to which I think I am entitled ...

... at the risk of becoming part of the problem, though, I no longer consider myself a feminist because I think large chunks of the movement have become more concerned with who runs the movement than who benefits from it.  I could expand on that but it's late; broadly, though, what galls me is the ruthlessness of a surprising number of feminists I have seen when faced with what they see as heterodoxy—from women.  Many would rather be right than useful, and while this certainly isn't confined to feminism, the very peculiar isolation from criticism practised by a lot of feminists I've met seems to me to be massively counterproductive in the business of making life better for women.

I know a couple of other people who have left, for similar reasons.

[taimatsu]

But what 'feminist movement' have you 'left'? I don't know who 'runs' feminism. As far as I know there is no 'feminism' as a unified group with a leader. I don't understand what you're saying. And, while obviously you can cease to apply the label 'feminist' to yourself, I'm not sure how else it is possible to 'leave' feminism if you still agree with the general aim of the equality of men and women. Additionally, I think letting a few shouty people put you off something you believe is right is not a good thing to do.