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]

I am an egalitarian. That includes equal rights for women, as it includes equality for all. I am not going to also self define as everything else it includes, so why define as feminist? Also, that's my choice, I choose not to, and anyone telling me I should is bordering on insulting. ifimust puts it very well, it is my *choice* to self define as egalitarian, and not as feminist. It is not anyone else's right to tell me that I am a feminist, or that I should define as one.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

It is not anyone else's right to tell me that I am a feminist, or that I should define as one.

Fair enough - that's not really what I'm saying, I'm just saying that by vocally claiming not to be a feminist I think you're damaging the cause of equal rights for women, which you claim to support. You're entirely within your rights to do so, but I don't think it's a terribly consistent position.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Usually, I only bother stating my position as an egalitarian when asked, or whatever. It's only when the idea appears that a woman not defining as a feminist is somehow wrong that I get vocal about it, as that really annoys me. It's nobody else's business what people self define as, they can be all for women's equality and not call themselves feminists for all sorts of reasons, and therefore I think it is very out of order for anyone to imply that this is wrong.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that by vocally claiming not to be a feminist I think you're damaging the cause of equal rights for women

But the difficulty here is that many feminists associate far more ideas than this one goal with the label "feminism".

[triskellian]

I'm not sure that's really very true (hmm, can I fit any more hedges into that sentence? ;-)

I mean, yes, feminists differ on what would constitute equal rights for women, or on how to go about achieving them, but IME feminism, as defined by actual feminists (rather than, say, Daily Mail journalists) basically boils down to believing two things:

1. The world we live in does not currently treat women as equal to men, and
2. It should.

I can see why people might not choose to call themselves feminists if they believe that to do so they are implying that this is the greatest of all inequalities, or that they want to explicitly claim a different inequality as their main priority, or something similar, but to choose not to use the label because you think it doesn't describe your beliefs - even though you do believe the two things above - seems a bit perverse.

The more people who claim the label and define it properly, the less ground will remain for those who try to redefine it in order to weaken it.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

It's particularly interesting that you say this since you're one of the people who I would have said extends the term to things I don't support.

[triskellian]

Go on then, what do I believe under the banner of feminism that you oppose?

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

In prescriptive use (or censure) of language.

[triskellian]

Umm. I don't think I do believe in being prescriptive about language use. I try to be aware of the language choices I make for myself, and there are words/constructions/meanings that I wish people wouldn't use and which I sometimes challenge when I hear them (some of which I might go so far as to suggest that organisations remove from their official discourse), but that's a far cry from being prescriptive.

But if I did believe that, it wouldn't be part of what I meant by feminism, it would be something I did in pursuit of the goals of feminism. It's different.

For example, something I actually do believe is that all maternity/paternity/parental leave and pay should be bundled up into one big pot that any given parents can divide between themselves as they see fit. I believe this because I'm a feminist and I believe such a situation would further the aims of gender equality, but I don't believe that this is part of what feminism means, and I don't require everyone to agree with me on it before I'll agree that they're a feminist.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

and which I sometimes challenge when I hear them

I don't understand the difference between that and being prescriptive, but apologies if I misrepresented your view.

it wouldn't be part of what I meant by feminism, it would be something I did in pursuit of the goals of feminism

Well OK, but as with a member of any organisation or group the actions of the members reflect upon the image of the group and whether or not others wish to be associated with it. So if, for example, a pro-democracy group in some third world country decided to shoot at soldiers of the corrupt totalitarian regime in pursuit of their goals then I would want to have nothing to do with that group even if I supported democratic rule in their nation.

[triskellian]

I don't understand the difference between that and being prescriptive, but apologies if I misrepresented your view.
By 'challenge' I don't mean I'll tell you not to use language I disapprove of*, I mean I'll tell you why I disapprove of it and/or point out the ideas that are encoded in the language, which perhaps you were unaware of (I'm not claiming any kind of high ground here - I want people to point out such things to me too). I'm pro-free-speech - I believe you have the freedom to say obnoxious things, but I have the freedom to tell you why they're obnoxious ;-)

(*Well, OK, I might, but not with the expectation that the telling had any force, just as I might 'tell' you to make me a cup of tea and then mutter about the terrible service around here if forced to make my own...)

I would want to have nothing to do with that group even if I supported democratic rule in their nation.
Sure, but you wouldn't stop saying you were pro-democracy, and say instead that you were "in favour of a system whereby the leaders of a country are decided by some sort of voting system where everyone in the country got an equal say", would you?

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Education concerning ideas is something I generally approve of. But where is the boundary between education and evangelism here? I can think of no other academic field where education consists of unsolicited usage guidelines offered to people who have expressed no interest. (Unless grammar pedantry is an academic field - even then it's considered poor form in most contexts.)

As far as I'm concerned the meaning of words drifts over time and is defined by usage. Sure, in explaining that "bastard" means "a child born out of wedlock" someone might be educating me (if I didn't already know) but if they go on to express the view that this should influence my choice to use it they are no longer educating me as such.

In fact (joining up the two sub-threads here) exactly the same applies to the word "feminism". You seemingly want it to be a clear, uncontroversial technical term - at least to the same extent that "democracy" is (which is to say not quite completely, but close enough). In saying that it isn't I am not somehow advocating the state of affairs where it is ambiguous. Instead, I am making an empirical observation concerning usage of the term and what it appears to mean.

Well, OK, I might, but not with the expectation that the telling had any force

I don't see anything wrong with that. Indeed, I see no qualitative difference between expressing preferences and shouting orders in the imperative whilst waving one's finger. In both cases the implicit threat is primarily disapproval since the listener is always free to refuse orders.

[taimatsu]

I really have to do more reading about 'feminism' as a concept/a word, and how people use it. It would be a fascinating area of study from a linguistic/usage point of view.

I wonder what people think I mean, when I say 'I am a feminist'?

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Have you seen Raymond Williams' Keywords? Lots of short but meaty essays on contested terms.

Actually, it's now 'New Keywords', at shelfmark 301.203-WIL (-:

[triskellian]

But where is the boundary between education and evangelism here?
It's always a bit of a grey area, isn't it? Would you challenge someone who referred to a corner shop as a 'Paki shop'? That usage was fairly common in my childhood, but would surprise me now, and I'd challenge it and expect most of my liberal-minded friends (you included) would do likewise.

It seems to me that challenging gendered language (which is sometimes unconscious sexism) is much more like challenging racism than like an academic discipline foisting its thought patterns on unwilling passersby.

As far as I'm concerned the meaning of words drifts over time and is defined by usage.
I agree (at least to the extent that I can, since something I do is edit others' writing, which requires some pretence at 'correct English').

Instead, I am making an empirical observation concerning usage of the term and what it appears to mean.
And what I'm doing is not saying "this is what feminism should mean", but saying that my empirical observations are that there are lots of people who choose to use the word to define themselves, and IME they all seem to broadly agree on the two propositions I stated above (although of course they all disagree on the details of what to do about it).

There are also lots of people who say "other people use it to mean <some other stuff>", but my point is that there are hardly any actual people saying "it means <some other stuff>", just people quoting those people. IYSWIM. So I try to challenge people who say "other people use it to mean <some other stuff>", especially when it turns out they think I'm one of those people!

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

It is not anyone else's right to tell me that I am a feminist

Why not? If you quack like a duck, you're entitled to claim that you're not a duck, but I'm just as entitled to refer to you as a duck, thanks.

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

As long as you're not doing it while saying that part of the process in which we're in theory all involved is the right of all ducks to self define, it's fine.

If, however, I'm going to sit here and say that part of feminism, for me, is the right of all women to self define, that means I have to accept their self definitions - whether I like them or not.

I might go so far as to say, "Ok you don't call yourself a feminist, fair enough - but I'd class your beliefs as belonging to the broad spectrum of feminism" - but no further.

If I'm about giving people freedom to self define, I can't then take that freedom back simply becuase I think someone's done it incorrectly...

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

I see, thank you. I can understand that self-definition is privileged, but I didn't realise it was to the exclusion of all other labels.

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

I think it's to the exclusion of imposition of labels from without, that contradict self chosen ones, for the most part.

There are obvious exceptions - I may maintain that I am perfectly healthy but my doctor disagrees - for the most part, her label (say, suffering from delusions of adequacy...) takes precendence over mine, if that makes sense.

But generally, yes, that's the view I'd take. :) What I can't do, of course, with any sort of integrity at all, is insist that my view takes precedence...

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I didn't realise it was to the exclusion of all other labels.

Do you see a difference between labelling a woman a feminist and labelling her a bitch? The latter, as I understand it, is considered bad form.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Heh.

As I see it, the label is problematic: not the act of labelling.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I agree.

For some, "feminist" is also a problematic label (if not perhaps to quite the same degree).

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Because it's up to me to define what I am, not you.

[thursdaily.livejournal.com]

What about defining what you aren't? Is that identical, or is denying someone's identification any more valid? (See my comment to elise for context...)

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

I don't see that denying someone's self identification is valid, either. That, again, is up to the individual. You define as a woman (correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the case), therefore that is what you are. There may be arguments over that in legal terms (I am uncertain on the current state of this), but to my mind if you identify as a woman then you are a woman. It is not down to other people to tell you that you aren't and never will be. Again, I do not know how the law sees this at present. I know how I think it should.

This is not to say that there aren't cases on the extreme ends of self identification that I don't consider a bit mad. But I'm never going to tell those people that I think that.