#feminisms

[hyacinthsgrimoire]

[loki-zen]

like completely aside from the fact that an it's unwelcoming to questioning, nontransitioning & closeted people, how did we (as vaguely progressive-shaped people who can be assumed to have been feminists in the 00s/10s and to be trans-positive now) go from obsession with the idea of unconcious bias and that orchestra thing and everything to "hey let's emblazon everything from email sigs to chat handles with signifiers of gender, in a work context. We'll put it right next to the name so everyone knows it's like the second most important fact about people. I bet this will have no unforeseen consequences."

[bossymarmalade]

I generally don’t write much in the way of serious topics on tumblr because I don’t find it a useful platform for that, but I’ve seen a number of posts/talked with mutuals lately about what we’ve been noticing in the erosion of feminist theory and how it’s discussed.

To me the culprit is the nature of tumblr itself. There’s no one stationary place for a conversation; people reblog a conversation that has branched off in a bunch of directions. They argue a point that could’ve been addressed by the OP except the conversation continued without the OP. They end up in places that were never intended.

Add to that: a) the way a pithy phrase captures attention faster than a thoughtful analysis and b) the number of ppl reblogging to point out that their particular group was not specifically taken into account, and you have an attempt at discussion that’s hobbled from the start.

I wish we could have discussions here like we used to on lj/dw but we can’t. So instead any discussion of feminism has its teeth cracked out one at a time with “but men can be abused too” and “what about transmen” and “eyeliner so sharp it could kill a man” and “WOMEN!! She!! Her!!” and look. All of these things have their place in the discussion. 

But when people generally don’t even know what the core tenets of feminism are, don’t understand the kyriarchy, or multiple axes of oppression, don’t understand second- and third-wave feminism, and just choose to make everything binary all over again? Right now in tumblr discourse, either critique of Men is wrong bc it doesn’t take into account these particular men, or All Women are Right All the Time Actually. And neither of these is useful in dismantling what feminism is intended to dismantle.

Feminism is for everyone, yes. But feminism is also an ideology intended to make people uncomfortable with and outraged at the status quo, the kyriarchical messages we grow up with and live under. It’s all right if your feminism isn’t mine, but if yours doesn’t actually stand for anything and is more concerned with empty virtue signaling or pat catchphrases, then does it actually benefit the cause? Or is it just lip service in between nitpicking? Is it just window dressing for oppressive systems? Is it doing those institutional systems’ work for them?

I don’t have any concrete suggestions about this; like I said, I don’t think tumblr as a platform can provide any repair. But who knows. Maybe a bunch of like-minded feminists talking about it more (and by like-minded, I just mean “invested”; the faces of feminism are legion) will help rejuvenate something that’s been pretty good to a lot of us (or at least offered a helpful framework to build our senses of self on). Maybe I’ll go back to talking about feminist topics myself. Maybe that’s not quite a bridge called our backs but it’s more than being the second sex. Maybe maybe may be.

[femalelore]

don't assume we can all pick up the pieces.

It's infuriating how society often fails to grasp the depth of pain that comes with being sexually assaulted.  The trauma isn't just a fleeting moment; it's a relentless shadow that follows you, affecting every aspect of your life. People throw around phrases like "move on" or "get over it," as if healing is a simple switch you can flip.  They don't understand the sleepless nights, the constant anxiety, the feeling of being unsafe in your own skin. It's a battle every single day, and the scars, both visible and invisible, are a testament to the strength it takes to keep going.  The pain is real, and it's time we stop minimizing it and start supporting survivors with the empathy and respect they deserve.

[radfemverity]

To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they have sex exclusively with women. From women they want sex, service and devotion. All of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, recognition and admiration they desire… those are, overwhelmingly, other men.

Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving.

— paraphrased from Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pages 134-135)

[books-in-media]

The New York Review of Books, (January 14, 2021)

—The Opening of the American Mind: Ten Years of The Point, The Point (2020)

—Hooked: Art and Attachment, Rita Felski (2020)

—Wild Thought, Claude Levi-Strauss (1962)

—Thinking Out of Sight: Writings on the Arts of the Visible, Jacques Derrida (2021)

—The Angel in the Marketplace: Adwoman Jean Wade Rindlaub and the Selling of America, Ellen Wayland-Smith (2020)

—Unspeakable: A Life Beyond Sexual Morality, Rachel Hope Cleves (2020)

—Feminisms: A Global History, Lucy Delap (2020)

—Queer Legacies: Stories from Chicago’s LGBTQ Archives, John D'Emilio (2020)

[feministbibliobs]

nächste Öffnungszeiten : next opening hours : prochaines heurs d'ouverture

di, 9.1.24 18:30-20.00h

mo, 29.1.24 17-19:30h

DE die feministische bibliothek ist offen - kommt vorbei zum schmökern, auf einen tee, bringt medien zurück und holt neue <3

FR la bibliothèque féministe est ouverte - venez feuilleter des livres, boire une tisane, rapportez vos médias, empruntez-en de nouveaux <3

EN the feminist library is open - come by to browse books, drink a tea, bring back your media, borrow new ones <3

📖🐙📚🪱📕🐻☕️🫖🍪🌈⚧📒✏️

[animentality]

[hyacinthsgrimoire]

[loki-zen]

Relevant to this: whenever you read about movie stars wearing corsets for roles and finding them a nightmare it’s relevant to note that

they are invariably wearing styles for upper class women, not styles worn by women who were expected to do things in them

they aren’t always made to be historically accurate anyway, and when they are

movie acting (and the training or lack thereof that many movie stars have as actors) tends to neglect a step that my training taught me was essential:

If you are a modern woman you did not grow up wearing these clothes and you do not know how to move in them. Stage actors rehearse in long skirts and stays and whatever else might be relevant and these and prestige period TV productions frequently have support from garment historians and living history practitioners in order that they might begin to approach the ease with which someone moves in these things if they have worn them their whole lives.

Living history practitioners have noted that there are countless things about the way you move when doing everyday tasks that have different optimal forms which, when adopted, make it suddenly make perfect sense how you (eg) cut and dry hay with a scythe in a corset and long skirt. This even extends to the design of environments! If you walk out of an accurately reproduced Victorian environment in a huge era-appropriate skirt, you immediately start knocking things over with it and getting it caught on things, because our environments were not designed with the expectation that anyone dresses like that.

It’s interesting to think how this could have contributed in the past to enforcing the exclusion of women from certain environments, and to the enduring cultural associations between clothing and the emancipation of women.

[femalelore]

The Woman vs. Woman Dynamic in Mental Health Stigma

Women often face significant stigma when it comes to mental health, which can be exacerbated by the woman vs. woman dynamic. Cultural norms dictate that women should be strong, nurturing, and self-sacrificing, leaving little room for vulnerability (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019). This stigma can prevent women from seeking the help they need, leading to untreated mental health issues (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019). Those from marginalized communities face even greater barriers due to intersecting stigmas related to race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019).

The internal battle is often compounded by external pressures, including societal expectations and the judgment of other women (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019). This woman vs. woman dynamic can create an environment where women feel isolated and unsupported, further exacerbating their mental health struggles (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019). Addressing these stigmas requires a multifaceted approach, including education, advocacy, and support systems that empower women to seek help without fear of judgment (Rosenfield & Smith, 2019).

References:

Rosenfield, S., & Smith, C. A. (2019). Gender and mental health: Do men and women have different amounts or types of problems? In R. C. Kessler & A. P. McLaughlin (Eds.), Handbook for the study of mental health (pp. 73-89). Cambridge University Press.

[mymy4802]

I just read that Donald Trump and his circus took down a website called reproductiverights.gov

This was a website to help women learn about their reproductive rights in the US and to find health care.

This is absolutely disgusting so I’ll share in this post some resources in case you need them:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn

[femalelore]

a poem made by me. These verses delve into the daily battles fought within the mind, where hope and despair constantly vie for control. It highlights the stigmas faced, the silent struggles endured.

[radfemverity]

The trans question seems to be the big barrier preventing a lot of women going from liberal feminism to radical feminism. While our beliefs are controversial in the male-dominated society, it is only the trans one that gets us cancelled, threatened, and even criminally prosecuted in certain countries.

I appreciate this might go down like a lead balloon with those on both sides of the fence, but here is an attempt to bridge the divide.

To the women who feel aligned to most things that radical feminism stands for, but think we’re ‘transphobic’ okay, fine. But please feel free to take the parts of our belief system that you find beneficial, and share those with the women in your life. That is still invaluable work. The ideological purity and labels matter less than the spread of ideas.

I completely take the point from fellow radfems of “How can you defend women if you cannot even define them?” And I have never seen ‘pro-trans’ feminists manage to answer that question. But if they want to try, let’s let them!

There are very few people on this earth qualified to purity test others. Obviously words have to have meaning, you can’t be a mother without a child, or a blonde while all your hair is dark brown. I’m not saying radical feminism should be watered down. My point is that we need to be as open as possible to discourse with women who don’t tick every box. Those who disagree with us on the trans question but agree with us on everything else, those who are conservative and homemakers, those whose main fight is against colonialism, and those who have such an eclectic mix of beliefs that they don’t fit into any one ideology – which represents a HUGE proportion of women.

Radical feminist ideas provide women with the conceptual tools to understand their life experiences, stop blaming themselves for the things they have suffered through, and keep themselves safe. Radical feminism makes women confident in their own judgements – utterly willing to trust their own gut instincts above any socialisation that is harmful to their wellbeing. I want women of every stripe to be given those ideas, even if they cannot stand me.

[loki-zen]

This is a good post. Nowadays in spaces I inhabit you see radical feminism so strongly conflated with TERFism (and before that, with sex-negativity and SWERFism) that people seem to feel they can dismiss the entire thing whole-cloth; this post does a really good job of articulating the ideas radical feminism actually had to offer (as well as its limitations) - many of which are now so much part of the fabric of our thinking that we no longer associate them with radical feminism specifically at all.

In general, understanding radical feminism for what it is and why it appeals to many people requires an understanding that the greatest strength of radical feminism as a tool for understanding misogyny and sexism is also its greatest faultline.

See, radical feminism is a second wave position in feminist thought and development. It is a reaction to what we sometimes call first wave feminism, which was so focused on specific legal freedoms that we usually refer to the activists who focused on it as suffragists or suffragettes: that is, first wave feminists were thinking about explicit laws that said "women cannot do this thing, and if they try, the law of the state and of other powerful institutions will forcibly evict them." Women of that era were very focused on explicit and obvious barriers to full participation in public and civil life, because there were a lot of them: you could not vote, you could not access education, you could not be trained in certain crucial professions, you could not earn your own pay even if you decided you wanted to.

And so these activists began to try to dig into the implicit beliefs and cultural structures that served to trap women asking designated paths, even if they did wish to do other things. Why is it that woman are pressured not to go into certain high prestige fields, even if in theory no one is stopping them? How do our ideas and attitudes about sex and gender create assumptions and patterns and constrictions that leave us trapped even when the explicit chains have been removed?

The second wave of feminism, then, is what happened when the daughters of this first wave--and their opponents--looked around and said to themselves: hold on, the explicit barriers are gone. The laws that treat us as a different and lesser class of people are gone. Why doesn't it feel like I have full access to freedoms that I see the men around me enjoying? What are the unspoken laws that keep us here?

And so these activists focused on the implicit ideas that create behavioral outcomes. They looked inward to interrogate both their own beliefs and the beliefs of other people around them. They discovered many things that were real and illuminated barriers that people hadn't thought of, especially around sexual violence and rape and trauma and harassment. In particular, these activists became known for exercises like consciousness-raising, in which everyday people were encouraged to sit down and consider the ways in which their own unspoken, implicit beliefs contributed to general societal problems of sexism and misogyny.

Introspection can be so intoxicating, though, because it allows us to place ourselves at the center of the social problems that we see around us. We are all naturally a little self centered, after all. When your work is so directly tied to digging up implications and resonances from unspoken beliefs, you start getting really into drawing lines of connection from your own point of interest to other related marginalizations--and for this generation of thinkers, often people who only experienced one major marginalization got the center of attention. Compounding this is the reality that it is easier to see the impacts of marginalization when they apply directly to you, and things that apply to you seem more important.

So some of this generation of thinkers thought to themselves, hang on. Hang on. Misogyny has its fingers in so many pies that we don't see, and I can see misogyny echoing through so many other marginalizations too--homophobia especially but also racism and ableism and classism. These echoes must be because there is one central oppression that underlies all the others, and while theoretically you could have a society with no class distinctions and no race distinctions, just biologically you always have sex and gender distinctions, right? So: perhaps misogyny is the original sin of culture, the well from which all the rest of it springs. Perhaps there's really no differences in gender, only in sex, and perhaps we can reach equality if only we can figure out how to eradicate gender entirely. Perhaps misogyny is the root from which all other oppressions stem: and this group of feminists called themselves radical feminists, after that root, because radix is the Latin word for root.

Very few of this generation of thinkers, you may be unsurprised to note, actually lived under a second marginalization that was not directly entangled with sexism and gender; queerness was pretty common, but queerness is also so very hard to distinguish from gender politics anyway. It's perhaps not surprising that at this time several Black women who were interested in gender oppression became openly annoyed and frustrated by the notion that if only we can fix gender oppression, we can fix everything: they understood racism much more clearly, they were used to considering and interrogating racism and thinking deeply about it, and they thought that collapsing racism into just a facet of misogyny cheapened both things and failed to let you understand either very well. These thinkers said: no, actually, there isn't one original sin that corrupted us all, there are a host of sins humans are prone to, and hey, isn't the concept of original sin just a little bit Christianocentric anyway?

And from these thinkers we see intersectional feminists appearing. These are the third wave, and from this point much mainstream feminist throughout moves to asking: okay, so how do the intersections of misogyny make it appear differently in all these different marginalized contexts? What does misogyny do in response to racial oppression? What does it look like against this background, or that one?

But the radical feminists remained, because seeing your own problems and your own thought processes as the center of the entire world and the answer to the entire problem of justice is very seductive indeed. And they felt left behind and got quite angry about this, and cast about for ways to feel relevant without having to decenter themselves. And, well, trans women were right there, and they made such a convenient target...

That's what a TERF is.

Now you know.