#especially because his response is a ‘respectful subservient’ ‘of course my lady. what would you have me do instead?’

[vigilskeep]

i’m also obsessed with the fact that gorim according to the toolset notes is always in love with a female player even one who is not in a relationship with him, so for example, when he says “rumour has it that harrowmont hopes you’ll be swept off your feet if a well-placed young nobleman wins the provings in your honour”, the line is always supposed to be read with the context “a little resentful—he loves the player and hates that she can still be courted by those of higher rank than him”. and only if you’ve already rejected him can you respond “don’t sulk. it’s unattractive”. which in that context is an insane thing to say.

[justyouraverageliberal-blog]

Why Feminsim isn’t One, Universal, Homogeneous Movement

I think everyone can agree that this U.S. election has brought about a lot of debate, anger, frustration, joy, hope, and a variety of other emotions depending on what candidate one supported. A huge conversation that occurred, and continues to occur, is the one about feminism. On both sides of the aisle there are people who are die-hard feminists, and there are those who hate the word feminism with every fiber in their being. I must admit, I am a feminist. But please don’t let that take away from what I am going to say. Something that worries me, as a young, left-leaning, woman attempting to educate myself on major political, cultural, and historical events is the lack of both sides in attempting to find common ground. Look, I am a ‘liberal’, but that doesn’t make me a bad person. Just like someone who voted for Trump in hopes of bringing back jobs to America is not inherently a bad person. What makes us bad people is when I refuse to listen to a steelworker in the rustbelt because I think his job security is not as important as my right to choose. Both are equally important concerns, but the current political climate causes us to become enemies, instead of working cooperatively together in order to bring a compromise that helps both parties. After all, our government was built on compromise – and if the past few election cycles have proved anything, it’s that the Republican and Democrat’s inability to compromise and work towards a common goal just hurts us, the American people the most. And the same can be said for people’s views towards feminism. You may love it, you may hate it, but at some point both sides need to get together and find a compromise because an inability to do so just hurts all members in the end.

Before I begin in my analysis, I want to talk about the feeling/vibe I get from the media and political commentators on feminism. Something that I have noticed is a urge to make feminism a homogeneous, universal movement. When the women’s marches were occurring in January, or when Sara Silverman made controversial comments about abortion, many were quick to point and say “Oh my God, Look, the feminists contradict themselves, all feminists want abortions – they are baby killers.” Or another statement I heard about feminism, and I still do, is that feminists are crude when referring to their vaginas, or breasts, or other body parts. I actually got into a heated conversation about this with my grandma (thanks in-part to a cousin who mentioned I was at a women’s march) who said that because I marched for women’s rights, it made me a “vile feminist” who should learn to “talk about oneself in a more appropriate manner.” Look, at the end of the day I respect these viewpoints. If someone believes that what women are saying at these marches or in interviews is crude or vile, then they have a right to voice those concerns. However, this brings me to my most important point – feminism is not, now, nor will it ever in the future, be a homogenous, one, united movement. Feminism has such an incredibly complex, deep history, and to assume that what one woman puts on her sign at a women’s march, or what one comedian says is representative of the whole movement is absurd. To help bring this point forward, here is a little background.

So, what is feminism? This one word that evokes grand statements of approval or dismay – is really just a fancy word for a women’s movement. A lot of individuals when they first read that quick and gritty definition will have one of two responses: 1) HA, exactly, I knew it was just a movement to help women become more important and powerful than men, those darn men haters. Or 2) That is so wrong and simplistic, this person has no idea what the feminist movement is about that uncultured swine! Okay, to be fair both responses are fair to my overly simplistic definition of what feminism is. But to put this in context, I am referring to the first stage of feminism here. When one takes a basic gender studies course (like I have), the professor will most likely label the first stage of feminism the Suffragette Stage. So this movement occurred in the 1910s through 1920s in Britain and the United States as a way to get women the right to vote. This is very true, but in both the United States and Britain, this was a movement directly linked to middle-class, white women. It was not inclusive, and arguably the term homogenous could definitely be applied. There was no variety in the types of women who were able to vote: only white, middle and upper class women. This is important to remember about feminism, especially since many minority women such as Indigenous women did not gain the right to vote until the late 1960s.

But, the first stage of feminism is still a little bit more complex and historic than a basic intro class gives one credit for. An absolutely fabulous book that I read last summer is titled The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir. It is edited and commentated on by Alice S. Rossi, and goes through the first wave of feminism in great detail. Something really great about this book, is that it talks about women from the 1770s – specifically Abigail Adams. She writes a letter to her husband, John Adams, pleading with him to “remember the ladies” because if the males of the Second Continental Congress did not, the women were “determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” Totally kick-ass right?! Abigail Adams is one of my favorite feminists because she existed before there was even a movement for it. She is writing to her husband, who would eventually be the second president, demanding he recognize women’s rights. That is pretty bad-ass. Yet, largely looked over in intro classes. In fact, if one takes Rossi’s book at face value, the first women’s movement was largely women demanding they be educated so that they could eventually make arguments for having the legal rights that men did. Another major area that early feminists such as Judith Sargent Murray is forced to deal with it the biblical interpretations of women. Though some today may use the bible to attempt to limit the rights of others (homosexuals anyone?), women being powerless really does not have religious connotations these days. But in the late 1700s, you bet. And this is so very important for people to understand. While it is true that the first real feminist movement revolved around voting, we tend to forget the pre-feminist period, or at least the early half of the first feminist movement, where women were demanding education, proving the bible didn’t support their subservience, and in the end really got the ball rolling towards women’s rights. And look, if feminism was ever ‘homogenous,’ the argument could be made that it was during the first wave, but even then, look at the length of time that the first wave took. You’re looking at the late 1700s all the way to the 1920s. That is a good chuck of time, with many cultural, political, and even economic shifts. Women were not completely the same, nor was their primary goal in regards to women’s rights.

The second wave of feminism takes place from the 1960s through the 1980s. This to me is what I think of when I think of feminism. The 1960s, mass protests, bra burning, and lots of sex. And to be fair, this is an overdramatized point of view, but something I think a lot of my generation shares. But what did the second wave of feminism fight and stand for? Well, they were primarily fighting for a broader set of values than the first wave did. They were looking at reproductive rights, legal inequalities (that weren’t solved in the first wave), cultural inequalities, sexual liberty, family rights, workplace rights, and even attempted to tackle the issues of domestic violence and marital rape. There were some issues with the second wave. First, there were splinter groups such as radical feminism, which called for the complete destruction of patriarchal constructs and a reordering of culture, politics, and the economy to create an evener playing field for both men and women. The other main splinter group was social feminism. This argued that while the patriarchy is important in creating inferior women, it was not the only method. They believed that the economy and women’s inability to be economically independent ultimately caused their inferiority. It tends to be women of these groups that get labeled ‘man haters.’ –whether or not you think that title is accurate is up to you to decide. Additionally, the second wave coincided with the Civil Rights Movement and other movements of the 1960s. African American, black, indigenous, minority groups were fighting for their rights, and what happened in large numbers was that these minority women were fighting two fronts: one for rights for their race, and one for rights on their gender. A trend that developed is that these women were largely ignored by the feminist movement – either due to racism or the perception that these women were focused more on their race rights over their gender rights. Many people believe that the second wave did not go far enough in incorporating various races and ethnicities into its ranks – but to be fair the feminist movement is still charged with this accusation today (I believe, rightly so).

The third wave of feminism is really a reaction to first and second wave feminism, and particularly their flaws. As I have said previously, the first and second waves of feminism have lacked both racial and class variety among their ranks. Even second wave feminism, which was at its peak during the height of the Civil Rights Movement failed to really draw any large numbers of minorities to their movement. The third wave, however, focused on these racial, class, and sexuality minorities of society. The third wave brought black, queer, white, poor, affluent and transsexual all together. The third wave began in the 1990s and many argue is still around today (though some argue we have entered into a 4th wave, either way I will stop at the third wave).  It is during the third wave that ‘feminism’ really transforms from a women’s rights movement to an equality movement. During this movement we have seen, just recently, an attempt to break down masculinity stereotypes that can be damaging for males, we have seen marriage equality in our country, we have seen an ability for many LGBTQIA to have open relationships and be out and relatively safe. Now, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. I know we have much to do with equality in the United States, and especially with the LGBTQIA, but arguably because of feminism and the third wave’s attempt to be more open, inclusive, and cooperative with other movements (such as the LGBTQIA movements) progress has been made.

So as you can see, feminism is a complex movement. Especially now under the third wave of feminism, as the movement attempts to become and embrace equality as its main goal, it is hard to be a homogenous movement. Think about the dates of these movements. There are women and men from the second wave still alive. There are people who are radical, socialist, Marxist, or a variety of other feminists alive today, who are actively working with Generation X third wave feminists and millennial third wave feminists. So when political commentators such as Tomi Lahren call feminists out for not wanting the same things, for contradicting themselves – remember that there are lots of different experiences and people in the movement, and one cannot expect them to all have the same ideologies, backgrounds, or hopes for the future. These individuals who claim to be feminists are hoping for a more equitable future – but that future may occur based on a variety of paths.