taimatsu | (no subject)

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I do think that saying "I believe in equal rights for women but I'm not a feminist" is a little bit like saying "I worship and follow Jesus Christ, but I'm not a Christian", or "I am attracted to, fall in love with, and have sexual relationships with both men and women, but I'm not bisexual".

You agree that it's a perfectly reasonable position then? :)

*chuckles* Reasonable isn't quite the word I'd used. Whilst I'm in principle I'm entirely supportive of people's right to self-define, I think all those statements are a bit daft.

Being an egalitarian means I support equality for everyone. Women included. I don't have to call myself a feminist for that.

I don't think anyone is saying you have to call yourself a feminist in order to support equality for everyone. But if you hold the ideals of egalitarianism, you also happen to hold the basic ideals of feminisism, and thus, are a feminisist as well. What you choose to call yourself, is, of course, up to you. But so is what other people choose to call you...

Nope. I'm an egalitarian. As said before, I'm not going to also define as every other individual cause that this could cover, so I'm not a feminist. If other people choose to tell me I am, then I am perfectly at liberty to tell them that it isn't up to them to define what I am for me, and that they are incorrect in their assumptions.

Well, it's apparent that you don't strongly identify as being a feminist. Neither do I, though I think I am one. It also seems entirely sensible to me to not bother listing all the possibilities that egalitarianism covers every time. It sounds like you are taking it a bit further than that though, in a way I find confusing: you seem to be saying that because you prefer the broader term, the narrower term, while entirely encompassed by the broader one, does not apply to you at all!

I think it's particularly confusing for me since I identify much more strongly with egalitarian than feminist, but I feel that because I agree with egalitarian ideals I necessarily agree with (core) feminist ideals. Perhaps we have different definitions.

I agree with the core feminist ideal, this is part of my personal egalitarian stance. I don't think that makes me a feminist. If I've said that I don't identify as such, I don't feel that it is up to anyone else to say "you also happen to hold the basic ideals of feminisism, and thus, are a feminisist as well" or state in any other way that I am a feminist really.

It's not a great deal to ask of people. Please don't tell me what I think.

I understand you don't want to focus on one type of equality, so don't declare yourself a feminist, or anti-racist, or whatever. But you seem to be self-defining as "not a feminist", which to me implies you don't believe in equality between the sexes, just like defining as "not an anti-racist" would give the impression that you think racism is ok.

No, I am self defining as an egalitarian. This means equality for all, including between the sexes. I am not sure how many more times I can say this, or how many more times I should need to. In the comment directly above yours when I look at this post, I state quite clearly that I do, of course, agree with the core ideals of the feminist movement, but that as this is part of the egalitarian thing, this doesn't make me a feminist. However, it seems that several people think that I am wrong and am really a feminist, or suddenly not a believer in equality at all.
Can you really not just accept that I DO NOT define as feminist, but DO self define as egalitarian? Why is it so very difficult for people to stop telling me what it is they think I really think?

Sorry. I didn't mean I actually thought you disagreed, as you've mad it quite clear you don't. I just meant that one fact alone without any context implies it.
I apologise for continuing with that topic.

Without context, it would, of course. But as you've said, I've made it quite clear several times that this is not the case.

I just find it laughable that several self defining members of a movement that is about equality and choice feel the need to repeatedly imply that I don't know my own mind, and I am what they say I am really. Really helping the image of feminism there.

Curiously, I don't identify as a feminist, because of the association with people who would deny that I'm a woman, on the grounds of transsexuality. On the other hand, I do identify as Christian, despite a large number of evangelical Christians who would deny that I was on exactly the same grounds. I'm not sure quite how I justify the intellectual inconsistency involved there...

I shall have to think more about this.

What beliefs do you hold that would lead people to deny you are a Christian? I'm a Mormon and maaaaaany people tell me I'm not a Christian when hi, I clearly am.

Well, the one that got me thrown out of my last church was identifying as a woman (and, more specifically, transitioning to live as a woman). My erstwhile vicar (with the agreement of the church council) believed that I couldn't be a Christian and do this, because I was "denying God's creation".

I might have expected it of more fundamentalist (particularly US) churches, but this, scarily, was a completely mainstream Church of England church.

gaaaah. Did he banish any women who got breast implants/botox/dyed their hair, too? Bah!

Well, if God created you with a female mind, I don't think you're the one doing the denying.