Recently in Theory Category

A while back I had made a call for proposals for an excellent anthology and it is finally ready and it is available free online with interactive features. So please go check out Beyond Masculinity: Essays by Queer Men on Gender and Politics.

The New Statesman, a great current affairs magazine and online presence out of the UK, asked feministing to post a series on, well, feminism and gender theory. Their Faith Column features a new person each week elucidating why they care deeply about a particular spiritual or intellectual philosophy. So this week, it's me, and I'm schooling peeps on what feminism ain't, what it is, and what it could be (to me at least). Check it out and feel free to put your two cents in the comments section.

I write this entry with a broken heart. The cumulative effect of hatred spewed via the internet inevitably bogs you down. In light of the conversations surrounding Jessica's book, I just wanted to touch on some of the issues that have come up. I am going to admit first and foremost, I haven't read all of them and I am not going to cite any people, just some themes that are coming up and the feelings they are bringing up for me.

Specifically, why is Jessica the face of Feministing? I have been writing for Feministing for 2 years. I am a woman of color and have consistently written about intersectionality in rigorous and radical ways. It seems to me, the only people that have noticed are my enemies, who have grilled me alive when they can. Some blogs calling out Feministing for a lack of intersectional analysis makes me feel like my voice has been erased and silenced. As have the voices of the women of color that write for Feministing and are written about at Feministing. This critique on the "whiteness" of Feministing is doing that which it seeks to ameliorate--erase the voices and contributions of women of color.

That said, I am not a token. I am not here to talk about all WOC voices. My being here doesn't inherently fix or solve the white-centered nature of the political blogosphere (please believe). And my brown-ness doesn't make me the spokesperson for all things brown, and similarly Jessica or the other white ladies, spokespeople for whites only. To discount the contributions of all the women that write for Feministing, while upholding Jessica as the embodiment of all that is wrong with Feministing and feminism, erases our contributions and ignores the fact that we are all working TOGETHER. What does it mean when Jessica is singled out for blame for posts or threads that we ALL take responsibility for?

All of the women that write for Feministing, from DAY ONE, have incorporated an intersectional analysis (please go back to archives and read). All of the writers at Feministing believe that a race, class and sexuality lens is necessary to inform our feminist action and writing. It's an integral part of our work, evidenced not only by what we write and how we write it, but also by who we bring in to work with us and the connections and collaborations we seek on the ground. To argue otherwise not only feels dismissive to us, it feels intensely hurtful and wrong.

The thing with blogs is that you pick who is most heard. We just do our thing and other people link to our work. What does it mean if Jessica is not the only reason Feministing is popular? That perhaps, Vanessa, Ann, Celina, Jen and myself, have had a hand in the popularization and circulation of some of our most controversial posts. It means that Feministing isn't just one perspective. It means that we have all said things that matter in a variety of arenas and in a variety of ways.

We are one blog, one group blog, we are NOT the holy grail of feminism. All the writers here draw from a variety of authors, feminists, writers and experiences. There is no central conversation, everything is a tangent to something else that someone else wrote and our reflections to it. My voice as a women of color is integrated to the greatest extent that ANY voice can be integrated into a blog. Everything is a tangent, an intervention, an analysis, a (dare I say) BLOG POST.

It seems that some of the frustration is with the way our comments threads go, sometimes unmoderated and frequently offensive. It is important to note that we do not reflect the opinions of people in comments. That is the point of comments, that they are a diverse array of opinions. This is something we have been talking about and dealing with for a long time at Feministing and have yet to come to a solid understanding of what to do. We do not want to silence diverse opinions, but it is hard to find a balance between a dialectical dialog versus things we happen to disagree with (that make us and many of our supportive readers, upset). If one thing can be said about the ladies here at Feminsting, we very passionately believe in the things we write about. So it makes moderating comments very, very challenging.

We have hit a space where it feels like, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. For some people, Jessica has come to embody (similar to Amanda, Jill and myself in the neocon blogosphere) all that is wrong with feminism and Feministing, when she is just ONE PERSON, who also worked her ass off and was in the right place at the right time, and yes, wrote a book. She is one voice and one perspective. As my friend just mentioned to me, "she's become iconic. She's no longer a real person. Despite the intimacy of blogging, who she really is is no longer relevant to the discussion." She has become a convenient target.

Critique of white feminism is necessary to keep movement alive. It is true that certain voices get to the top, but there are a variety of factors for that--and white-ness is one of them. But what if we stop to think about what some of the other ones might be? Why is it that I might get a book deal? What are all the rest of us are doing over here? THEN WHAT? DO WE WIN THEN?

No, we don't. Clearly this is difficult terrain to navigate as it is fueled with not just our politics but our intimate and dearly held feelings. There is no winner, just the vain hope of getting somewhere with what we are doing. If we fail to look at greater systemic issues (like why white women are positioned where they are verses women of color, or WHO decides the marketing of images, products and books) as opposed to hating on someone, who you don't know, then we all lose.

All of that said, I also want to say, "JESSICA I LOVE YOU and I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE."

Blac(k)ademic has a very articulate post up about a comment that she received when guest-blogging at Alas, A Blog and in my eyes really brings out how mainstream feminism is in fact still dominated by whiteness, despite so much work done by feminists of color, third world/black feminists and anti-racist white feminists. Mainstream understandings of feminisms (in many cases, far be it for me to essentialize here) still show to be obsessed with the reduction of issues, in this case the belief that gender could possibly *trump* race.

nubian says...

...it is ridiculous to lay claim to the idea that all women are oppressed on equal terms, simply because they are women. obviously, oppression is more complicated than that and i personally think that gender does not trump anything. instead, there are interlocking systems of oppression that women face based on gender, race, class, sexuality, religious background, nationality, citizenship status and so forth. it is very naive and very, very 2nd wave-ish to say, "well, gender trumps race." i can't even understand how one can come to such a conclusion.

in the case of the current duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. however, i don't see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter--all of her identities must be taken into account. her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn't, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it's determining how she is misrepresented in the media. additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. it is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which i personally see as a form of violence towards these women--no matter what.

I couldn't agree more. And to add to it sexism and racism (among other issues, but this is not my dissertation) are not only intersected but they continually reinforce each other. Things like the feminization of poverty (that women of color are the poorest sector of our society) or the emasculation of men of color (black men being systematically raped in the criminal justice system asserting white male paranoia, anxiety and dominance over *them*) describe moments when issues of class, race, gender, sexuality are interrelating to create new types of realities, differing moments of oppression, that would simply go ignored if we are to look at singular categories of *oppression*. This type of thinking is useless for me. No one ever sees me and thinks "a woman!" they immediately see my race (fuck half the time they hear my race) and that could never *trump* my experience as a woman.

Furthermore, feminists of color are often (and continually, usually subversively) asked to put their race (among other) *issues* to the side to call for some kind of fictional universal sisterhood fighting towards a type of equality we may not even agree with (and an equality the men of "our" diaspora never had). This is in no way a new critique but one that has been discussed and hashed out several times over by many different feminists. But reading the comments to her post (and thinking about all the times I cringe to read the comments when I write about women of color) I realize little has changed...

Ultimately I have to wonder, what is the mainstream face of feminism? All the work we (women of color) have done, has it trickled to the mainstream? Or are people still under the belief that patriarchy functions in a vacuum and is the sole root of oppression? (clearly this discussion is for people that recognize that patriarchy is oppressive...)

Jessica and I were talking the other night about all the posts we have done on women of color and third world women and how ultimately the posts that get the most discussion, the most comments, the most attention are the ones about dating, or differences between men and women, or body image. Of course these discussion are important (and often humorous), but can they *really* be had without rigorous analysis and incorporation of class, race, sexuality etc. And is it still that difficult to engage in discussion about/with/around women of color or are we still strategically and instinctually left out of the dialogue of mainstream feminism?

This is just the tip of the iceburg but since we are a mainstream feminist blog and I am a woman of color writing for a mainstream feminist blog, I thought it was really important to bring this discussion here.

Thoughts?

You know because we are robots. No but really, a new study has found that women and men are neurologically different and thus feel emotions differently. Because we need more studies to support this hypothesis, really...

The study focused on activity in the amygdala, a cluster of neurons found on both sides of the brain and involved for both sexes in hormone and other involuntary functions, as well as emotions and perception.

Mr Cahill and his co-author Lisa Kilpatrick scanned the brains of 36 healthy men and 36 healthy women. The subjects were told to relax with their eyes closed during the scan, so that differences between the sexes could be studied at rest rather than during ‘heavy lifting’ such as accessing memories.

The study found that...

For men, the cluster “talks with� brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what’s going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that co-ordinates motor actions.

For women, the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body. These areas tune in to and regulate women’s hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration.

This is a pretty small sample size so clearly these are not generalizable findings. But I have to question the cultural beliefs that surround these types of findings. I have to question a study that finds women and men are made differently as opposed to how environmental, cultural and social factors have affected these brain patterns (thoughts and actions). Can something learned change brain chemistry?

Many feminists and cultural theorists have found that it is cultural and environmental factors that support women in internal thinking, acting, responding and support men in external thinking, acting and responding, etc. So then how valid is this study? How can a study like this be valid without a consideration of surrounding factors?

I fear that studies like this just add to archaic ideas of inherent differences between men and women that are biological, as opposed to recognizing the way patriarchy functions to create these differences.

Just saying...

via Examiner.

Apparently there has been a little upswing in the number of women that have decided to go back to taking their husband's name upon marriage.

Interesting?

“Adopting a husband’s last name remains an entrenched tradition that is on the upswing, despite a temporary blip in the ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s where many young women tended to want to hold on to their birth names,” said UF linguistics professor Diana Boxer, who led a series of studies. “I think it reflects how men’s power continues to influence American society despite the fact that women have made great advances economically and socially.”

“Taking on my husband’s last name was an outward sign of our union,” explained one woman. “It served to make me feel that I was ‘really married’ and that we were forming a brand new family.”

This is interesting, because many women have said that to me, "What is in a name?" I think naming is important, it is strategic and it does serve as a symbolic representation as to who is in "charge" of the particular union. Language and names are a very socially mediated system of symbols and what you choose to name yourself does reflect certain values of society. In this case, women are choosing to be defined in name by there husband and that is very much connected to patriarchal control. That doesn't mean that these women don't have agency, voice etc, but it does serve as a symbolic representation.

The researchers found that many women felt they should take their husband's name because it would be good for their children and would represent the union of their family. Quite frankly, it does take more than a name to create a feeling of family union. Sometimes these lies force women to be complicit in their own oppression in ways that are conscious and unconscious. This is how patriarchy thrives.

I was happy to see that eight families have filed suit in response to the ridiculous intention of the school board from Dover, PA to introduce “intelligent design” to ninth-grade biology class. At the same time, I’m not happy about how intense this load-o’-crap dispute is getting.

The trial is being considered by some as one of the most significant evolution-linked legal battles in two decades.

The families' (and backed by the ACLU) argument is that its teaching in school violates the First Amendment clause specifying the separation of Church and State. Sounds pretty solid to me. On the other hand, the attorney defending the school board argues that “the case is about free inquiry, not about a religious agenda.”

By the way, the school board's attorney is Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center, which lists one of its core missions as “defending the religious freedom of Christians."

Supporters of “intelligent design” claim that there is a serious controversy in the scientific community concerning the theory versus evolution. Yet the National Academy of Sciences denies this fervently, admitting that while mainstream scientific arguments do occur concerning evolution's specifics, they still support its existence.

Meanwhile, the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education characterized the intelligent design book, “Of Pandas and People” as the beginning of the modern intelligent design movement.

I just don’t understand how a place of science, particularly pro-evolution, could legitimize this theory in any way. Let’s hope this trial ends on a more rational note.

This study published in the UK suggests that women deal better with decline in social or financial losses. The study seems to have several flaws(like suggesting that one reason is because women look to successful family life instead of career success for happiness) and should not be generalized outside of its sample population, but I still thought it was interesting.

Men who experienced a downward social shift were four times more likely to feel depressed than men who improved their social status, whereas there was no marked difference in the mental health between women who moved up or down the social ladder, according to research from Britain's Newcastle University.

Women in the study were actually twice as likely to be downwardly mobile but generally avoided the depression and poor psychological wellbeing shown by men, the study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health said.

Maybe because women have had to deal with lack of access to upward mobility for so long, that they can just deal. A sad thought, but just an idea...

The Chicago Tribune has a half-assed assessment of the "breadth" of modern feminism. They use three examples to represent the spectrum of feminist organizations: Concerned Women for America ("bringing Biblical principles to public policy"), Feminists for Life ("Refuse to Choose"), and the Feminist Majority ("working for women's equality").

The Tribune took up the topic presumably because Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' wife is counsel to Feminists for Life. (Ellen Goodman turned in a good column on this subject.)

So I'll take the article's bait: Is there such thing as an anti-choice feminist? Not by my definition of feminism. I think you can be personally against abortion and still support other women's right to choose, and therefore still be a feminist. I'll also say it's not in feminists' best interest to alienate people who are not pro-choice but can be allies on other causes (like the Violence Against Women Act, which Feminists for Life supports).

But to me (someone who was not a gender studies major) reproductive choice is central to women's full participation in society. Feminism is also about recognizing the intersection of many issues that affect women. So while I don't object to anti-choicers like Feminists for Life calling themselves feminists, I also find it hard to stomach that they refuse to take a position on key issues beyond Roe v. Wade, such as Title IX, access to contraception and same-sex marriage. They fail to notice that supposed "pro-life" political leaders are not rushing to enact policies to support mothers by ensuring affordable child care, paid family leave, access to health care.

So what's with Feminists for Life's tagline, "Refuse to Choose"? Feminism is all about freedom to choose, and not just when it comes to abortion.

You must check out this awesome online magazine, The F-Word, just launched by a Women’s Studies major from Temple University, Melody Berger. The magazine’s audience? Teens and young women.

The very first issue has just been completed, and now open for viewers to read. It has a ridiculous amount of kick-ass essays, articles, and artwork. They even have a couple of interviews with some of our fabulous famous feminists, like Gloria Steinem, who discusses a range of topics, from the third wave to the war. (My personal favorite section of the mag was the “Howling Harpies.”)

The dope thing about this magazine is not only does it mobilize young women and cover a crapload of feminist issues, but also dissolves the line between feminist theory and activism.

So check it out and show some love!

This is an article published in Ms. a while ago, but I just came across it and wanted to get some feeback. It is written by Lisa Jervis, the co-founder of Bitch magazine and she talks about what she considers a dated term--"wave" when refering to feminist activism and thought. She believes that in our attempt to distinguish ourselves as "third wave" feminists, we have caught ourselves in the belief that there is a singular way to be feminist.

In her reluctance to answer questions about "third wave" ideology, she responds...

This reluctance isn’t just me being cranky and not wanting to answer any hard questions. Here is the reality: We’ve reached the end of the wave terminology’s usefulness. What was at first a handy-dandy way to refer to feminism’s history and its present and future potential with a single metaphor has become shorthand that invites intellectual laziness, an escape hatch from the hard work of distinguishing between core beliefs and a cultural moment.

Interesting stuff. I also found this quote rather interesting...

Here’s what we all need to recognize so that we can move on: Those in their 20s and 30s who don’t see their concerns reflected in the feminism of their elders are ignorant of history; those in their 50s and beyond who think that young women aren’t politically active — or active enough, or active around the right issues — don’t know where to look.

These are some pretty intense statements. Have we reached a phase where we can stop differentiating between the different moments of feminism? My entire experience with 3rd wave agenda is that it put me, women of color, at the center of it's (non-linear) discourse. Not in the age-old, or previous "native informant" type of way, but in a way that recognized my differing relationship to the movement, to patriarchy and to society. The second wave failed to effectively do this. That is why I consider myself not only a 3rd wave feminist, but also a 3rd world feminist. I don't think we have reached a place to completely make amends with our foresisters (at least not with my experience with 2nd wavers in academia!). But that's just me.

What I do agree with...

We may not all agree on exactly what it looks like or how to get it. We should never expect to agree. Feminism has always thrived on and grown from internal discussions and disagreements. Our many different and often opposing perspectives are what push us forward, honing our theories, refining our tactics, driving us toward a more thorough dismantling of the white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy (to borrow another phrase from hooks).

What do you think?

If you're interested in learning about a feminist perspective on the war in Iraq, check out Cynthia Enloe's work. I was lucky enough to see her speak at the Institute for Research and Women's annual conference at University at Albany last week titled, "Making Feminist Sense in the War in Iraq".

One part of Enloe's discussion was identifying "militarization", and how during this time of war we are vulnerable to be militarized ourselves -- to believe that not only that we are constantly threatened by certain "enemies" in the world, but that violence and war is usually the only way to solve this problem.

Enloe is chair of the Government Department and director of the Women's Studies department at Clark University. She is renowned for her famous books on globalization, militarization of gender, sexual politics in war, and feminist perspectives of international policies. To check out some of her books, click here.