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

[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!

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Would you challenge someone who referred to a corner shop as a 'Paki shop'?

That's a remarkably complex question. The short answer is "yes, in almost all cases", but not as a default reaction as such.

1) If it was said by someone I know and trust to be non-racist, I would assume it was some kind of joke I wasn't getting and respond accordingly. I suppose that's a challenge of sorts. If it turned out not to be a joke then same stuff as in section 2) below applies.

2) If it was said by someone I don't know well enough to be sure then rather than telling them off I'd try to establish in stages what was up with their choice of terminology. There could be a number of things going on here:

2a) If the shop is actually run by people from Pakistan then the speaker's doing two things: First, characterising the shop owners entirely by race. Second, using a slang racial label. I'd ask the speaker why they didn't use the shop's real name, but if their answer was "everyone calls it the Paki shop" I'd consider the matter closed.

2b) If the speaker actually has no idea which racial group the shop owners belong to and is simply assuming they're from Pakistan or doesn't give a toss whether it's accurate or not, I'd point out the likelihood of this annoying someone. If the speaker can't see why, I might go into more detail. If they seem to have been previously unaware of the issue I'd likely point out to them that this is racism.

2c) If the speaker made it clear that it had nothing to do with the race of the shop owners and was local slang then whether I pointed out the potential for offence due to the implied racial stereotyping would depend on whether I expected they'd already know. In a modern context I would expect essentially everyone to know, so would be very unlikely to comment further.

It seems to me that challenging gendered language [...] is much more like challenging racism

Well, it's more like challenging language perceived as racially sensitive. Part of the problem is that (I allege) not all gendered language relates to sexism, conscious or otherwise.

There's also the question of whether the various attacks on racially sensitive language were a good idea. I don't know enough about race issues to comment having grown up in a majority White community and later lived only in very peaceful, cooperative multi-cultural communities where equality was at least an undisputed goal if not yet actually achieved.

my point is that there are hardly any actual people saying "it means "

Wouldn't expect them to put it in those terms, though.

I can see it now: "Feminism to me is a rallying point to gather like-minded female chauvinists and mutually reinforce each other's prejudices whilst attacking anyone who doesn't agree". Uh... no. Nobody ever casts themselves in the role of villain.

As undyingking said the other day on my recent post: "in any [...] movement there'll always be people walking alongside you that you think are a bunch of idiots". And in any given movement each individual has a choice - to embrace the activities of all you strive towards the same goal or to refuse to accept that the end justifies the means. On almost every issue I fall into the latter category.