July 6, 2005
Whither "feminist"?
This started as a comment to another comment on a post of Ancaret's, but as it also resonated with something else I read today, which led to this Salon article, I thought I would turn it into a post.
The topic for today is the term "feminist": is it overly restrictive/passé/etc.?
Well, no.
Contemporary feminism is pretty comprehensive; I can't imagine you could find any credible feminist who would not assert that feminism is inextricably tied to anti-racism, glbtq rights — to human rights in general. But there is still value in the label, even if a literal reading might indicate a restricted interest in women's issues, narrowly defined: a feminist is an activist; she is someone who is politically engaged. "Personist," suggested by Ozymandia, is not a widely accepted term, and its meaning is unclear. "Humanist" has a particular historical meaning. I think all feminists recognize the problems with the label, but that label nonetheless has a meaning and a history, neither of which we should turn our backs on. Particularly in these interesting times. And conversely, younger feminists are refashioning the term in ways that work now; it is by no means moribund.
This topic came up recently for me at a conference panel; the subject was labels, specifically "science fiction" versus "speculative fiction." My point was that one should choose to call oneself (or in this case, ones work) what made the most sense, and that one was not responsible for others' responses, reasonable or ridiculous. It was at that point that I proclaimed myself a feminist (a friend in the audience said later, "I could tell that's when the coffee kicked in") and said that I would not let others' misperceptions or misrepresentations make me back down from proclaiming an essential part of my identity.
Well, it made sense at the time.
The subject of labels also came up a few years ago when we were naming our new minor. "Gender Studies" won out, much to the chagrin of the traditionalists, but I am happy with it because it does not involve a loss of focus; in fact, it situates feminism within a wider system of analysis, and allows us to discuss other, related issues, such as glbtq issues, without implicitly positioning them as somehow secondary. But I wouldn't call myself a "genderist." No-one would know what I meant, but more importantly, analysis is one thing and activism is another, though they have a reciprocal relationship. From gender analysis one becomes a gay rights activist, or a feminist, or a transgender activist. Or all of the above.
Calling oneself a feminist means that one is politically engaged, in whatever way. Being a "personist" may be a philosophy (though I would frame it much differently, and the term "human rights" would be in there somewhere); being a humanist certainly is; but being a feminist is a commitment, to oneself and to others.
And if they call you a big hairy-legged bulldyke ball-breaker, that's their problem. Really. As Jessica Valenti writes, "Suck it up."
(Anyway, some of my best friends are big hairy-legged bulldyke ball-breakers).
Scribbled at July 6, 2005 10:57 PM AST | Permanent link to this post | More? feminismTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://webteam.unb.ca/mt/asdf23wer234msadf.cgi/1794
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whither "feminist"?:
» More labels from / musing / struggling / dreaming /
scribblingwoman has another take on the idea of labels and how we use them to describe ourselves (‘feminism’, in this case).
[Read More]
I'm glad that someone else feels feminism is an essential part of their identity. I really couldn't be myself if I weren't a feminist and proud of it.
Scribbled by Ancarett at July 7, 2005 12:17 AM | Permalink'Feminism' certainly evokes a great history of thinking and action which progresses into the present.
I have thought often but not deeply about whether, as a male, I can be a feminist. I struggle with it a bit because while I support the principles of feminism, not being a woman I can't personally know the experiences that lead to a feminist position.
I think I might have to explore this further.
Scribbled by Chriscurnow at July 9, 2005 9:41 AM | PermalinkI have always preferred the term "pro-feminist man," but in an odd way, it's not really my choice, is it, how men who support feminism call themselves? But you are certainly right: inasmuch as feminism grows from personal experience, it seems incongruous for a man to call himself a feminist. On the other hand, men have to deal with the strange and arbitrary nature of gender roles just as the rest of us do, and that is certainly personal for all of us. There doesn't, however, appear to be a simple label to identify men who question the gender economy and their power within it.
Scribbled by mj at July 9, 2005 11:37 AM | PermalinkThanks mj, this is good food for thought.
I have often jokingly thought about "associate feminist.";-)
Scribbled by chriscurnow at July 10, 2005 12:04 AM | PermalinkIf any man is comfortable with naming himself feminist, then that's fine by me, and I'm truly glad to have him on board. If anyone, male or female, isn't comfortable with the name but espouses feminist principles anyway, I'm fine with that too. As long as they don't swallow the anti-feminist stereotypes and start dissing us, and telling us not to be feminists and that we should call ourselves something else that they prefer.
Scribbled by sharon at July 10, 2005 8:54 AM | PermalinkI think I said this at Ancarett's, but yes, I'm a damned (32%) USAmerican liberal democrat feminist and damned proud of it. Oddly enough, although I've never been accused of the bulldyke, hairy-legged thing (I may be top, but I am also pretty femme), male colleagues always say I 'communicate like a man' -- especially in public. That and the most non-feminist of them accused me of having brass balls (I looked -- I don't) because I am perfectly willing to tell students who haven't prepped for class to go away and come back next class. It's pretty damned annoying that what I thing of as being assertive (at best) is appropriated and re-gendered. WTF? Should that be a good thing, because these men seem to respect it, or a bad thing, because they don't get it in such a big way that they have to redefine it to deal with it?
Scribbled by Another Damned Medievalist at July 11, 2005 9:22 PM | PermalinkAncaret: Hey, we are legion. (Or was that vampires?)
Chris: I like it. Is there a lapel pin?
Sharon: Of course, you are right: in the final analysis, actions count more than words.
ADM: I hear ya, sister. (Maybe you have brass ovaries?)
Scribbled by mj at July 12, 2005 1:13 PM | Permalink