Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Say When

522 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 21 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    Lord, can't leave this alone now ... what got me was seeing someone who talks endlessly about power relationships so obviously power-tripping with the assistance of the same damn rhetoric.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Megan Wegan, in reply to Russell Brown,

    But when the people who most aggressively and passionately claim the word say and do things that seem wrong to me (and, I must confess, when they perform torture on language to do so), it does seem reasonable to say “not that sort of feminism”.

    My feminism* says “I don’t get to tell other women what to think, and what to call themselves”. So I call myself a feminist, and I am happy for other people to appropriate the label. Because when someone asks me, I am happy to explain what that means to me. There’s not a rule book. There’s not a 10 commandments. There’s no high holy priestesses.

    I absolutely have issues with what some people who identify as feminists say. But if I, like Emma, want feminism to be inclusive of everyone, including men, queers, Christian republicans, then I have to put up with the fringe, or those people I disagree with. Am I offended by being termed a “lifestyle feminist”. as if that precludes serious thought and study? Yes. Immensely. Do I care? Not all that much, no. I know what my views are, and I am happy to argue them.

    * It also says "yay! I win!" when Emma admits to being a feminist.

    Welly • Since Jul 2008 • 1275 posts Report

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to ,

    I was just asking that we really do some real research and also establish what constitutes rape, before bellowing out bullshit statements.

    I'll own up to that. If you want to disabuse me of the notion that most rapists are men, I will most certainly examine whatever research you have to send my way, and amend my position if necessary.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report

  • Jackie Clark,

    My head, it hurts. Feminism is, as Ben suggested, a very wave-y sort of thing. My feminism was based on a very strict sort of ideology. I was brought up to be a feminist, and at University, I was a staunch supporter of Wimminspace and other joyous organisations. It was a movement of it’s time, my feminism. Women were being stranger raped, in fairly large numbers, so all the marches to claim the night were necessary. You didn’t walk alone at night. You learned how to keep yourself safe because men were the enemy. Our answer to being jumped on by strange men was defiance. I happened to have been jumped on, and attempted to be jumped on, a bit. And my feminism worked for me. It made me loud, and proud, and really fucked off. At a lot of things. As I have aged, I am less fucked off about those things, and more fucked off at others. I believe, still, I suspect, in very different things to the contemporary feminists (many of whom I greatly admire for their open mindedness and ballsiness – we were ballsy but we weren’t particularly openminded, because we couldn’t really afford to be). But the differences lead to useful discussions – discussions which lead feminism into a brighter future, I think. One where choice, anyone’s choice, is important. Where men can be feminists, or suuportive of feminism, in a really genuine and nonpatronising way. And hopefully, a future where men like Steve Crowe don’t exist. Oh, there’s the oldfashioned feminist in me coming out again…….Once a Unifem, always a Unifem.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report

  • BenWilson, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Am I offended by being termed a “lifestyle feminist”. as if that precludes serious thought and study? Yes. Immensely. Do I care? Not all that much, no. I know what my views are, and I am happy to argue them.

    It seemed like the intention was similar to "chardonnay socialist" - in the same vein as farmers sneering at "lifestyle blocks" which aren't "real" farming. But I'm not really sure that sally meant that. She might have meant "feminists who believe different feminist lifestyles are possible". Sally?

    Further, despite the possibility of a sneer in there, I notice sally has sparked off a nice debate. I'm grateful for that. We've got to be careful we're not falling into the "don't use words the way you want to use them" trap ourselves.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report

  • Paul Williams,

    <light-hearted>I'm speculating now, but is one consequence of "identity politics" the passion behind some cause celebs, cycling for instance? You know; as a white middle class hetro man, I'd love to attend your land rights sit in but I'd look out of place... instead I'm off to ride slowly across the harbour bridge? <light-hearted>

    ‘Cause I think that what's annoying me about this notion of identity politics; the sense that somehow an individual’s politics is constrained to only their personal experience. This narrow construction offends the "no man is an island" principle that I'm injured by any oppression.

    I far from an activist (now) but certainly my activism in the past was oriented at decreasing disadvantage even if I didn't directly suffer it myself... then again it was student politics (cue accusations of being petite bourgeoisie...)

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    Gio, Steven has written similar things here before, and I don't think he'll mind me saying that it's not born of theory or evidence, but extremely traumatic personal experience. I'd just ask you and others to bear that in mind in your responses. Ta.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Megan Wegan, in reply to BenWilson,

    If anyone out there is genuinely interested in reading what highly educated and useful feminists have had to say on the issues debated and distorted by the ‘lifestyle feminists’ dominating the discussion here, I strongly recommend starting with Germaine Greer’s the whole woman (1999).

    If you can't hear a sneer in there, you are a better man than I.

    I'm glad you're grateful for the debate. For me, I feel like we spend a bit too much time talking about the definitions, and not a lot of time talking about the real problems. Like, for example, teh focus on women's appearances Emma was talking about in the original post.

    Welly • Since Jul 2008 • 1275 posts Report

  • Emma Hart,

    It seemed like the intention was similar to "chardonnay socialist" - in the same vein as farmers sneering at "lifestyle blocks" which aren't "real" farming. But I'm not really sure that sally meant that.

    Yeah, that's why I asked. Cause there are a bunch of labels which are used to describe "third wave/sex-positive" feminists which are often, but not nearly always, used in a denigrating fashion. And they get my hackles up, but I'd like to give benefit of the doubt. Lipstick feminist, choice feminist, lifestyle feminist, and my personal favourite, sparkle-pony.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report

  • giovanni tiso,

    I would submit that it is more than acceptable to have a debate on the relative merits of different currents of feminism, and that reducing it simply to a matter of choice would run the danger of glossing over how some choices are made possible by privilege. Nina Power for instance in One Dimensional Woman makes a case against what she calls consumer feminism and I think it's perfecly tenable.

    However using the label "lifestyle feminism" without an actual argument behind it strikes me as more of a passing, gratuitous sneer than anything else.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report

  • Megan Wegan, in reply to Emma Hart,

    sparkle-pony.

    I have never been called that! I want to be.

    Welly • Since Jul 2008 • 1275 posts Report

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Gio, Steven has written similar things here before, and I don't think he'll mind me saying that it's not born of theory or evidence, but extremely traumatic personal experience. I'd just ask you and others to bear that in mind in your responses. Ta.

    Yes, I didn't mean to appear confrontational in my response. I think my statement may well be ignorant but is borne out by our crime statistics at the very least - we could just leave it at that. Or not, I don't mean to foreclose any discussion either.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report

  • Jackie Clark, in reply to Megan Wegan,

    Me too. But it wouldn't apply to me really, as much as I would want it to.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report

  • Megan Clayton, in reply to BenWilson,

    I guess I’m saying there’s a constructive and a destructive way to go about [definition battles]. The two are not always mutually exclusive, of course.

    Yes; the former relies on a level of self-consciousness in debate that itself can sometimes inhibit debate, especially on matters where it's appropriate and even desirable to have guns blazing, as it were.

    Christchurch • Since Feb 2007 • 51 posts Report

  • giovanni tiso,

    Ta, Steven. This would still make males account for a vast majority of cases - which is not to say that sexual abuse perpretrated by females is any less traumatic or in any way excusable.

    (In fact I remember that research from an earlier discussion. But - and again, without prejudice to what you're saying - the statistics on adult-on-adult rape are quite different, aren't they?)

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report

  • James Butler, in reply to ,

    My apologies - my snark was unwarranted. I was thinking of similar comments I have seen made with much less well-informed thought backing them than yours.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2009 • 856 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to ,

    Bart, I was asking a serious question.

    That wasn't me and no I'm not going to engage on this one.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to ,

    I don’t particularly think the adult on adult statistics are particularly relevant other than to say that adult men are less vulnerable to female rapists.

    That's not inconsequential, also in terms of how that power imbalance is amplified by enabling social conventions that excuse adult on adult rape to this day.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Emma Hart,

    sparkle-pony

    I can haz sparkle pony

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to ,

    no worries - sorting out quotes can get messy - this feels a lot like an interesting dinner party - mmm more chardonnay

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • Jacqui Dunn,

    Surely we're on to the reds by now!

    Deepest, darkest Avondale… • Since Jul 2010 • 585 posts Report

  • nzlemming, in reply to Megan Wegan,

    I’m glad you’re grateful for the debate. For me, I feel like we spend a bit too much time talking about the definitions, and not a lot of time talking about the real problems. Like, for example, teh focus on women’s appearances Emma was talking about in the original post.

    Yup, which is why I pointed out that Sally had redirected the discussion to where she wanted it to be by making - let's say "deliberately provocative remarks" and leave it at that. Idealogues do that a lot, rather than discussing actual ideas.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report

  • nzlemming, in reply to ,

    Accepted, Now I’m going out to burn my bra…

    I'm hoping dyslexia doesn't mean your bar is now at risk. Men need more bars!

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report

  • nzlemming,

    Actually, watching this and the Gaying Out thread, I’m reminded of a discussion on Twitter the other day about PAS being all hipsters and indie music clones and all.

    So #not.

    [ETA] I'm hoping Russell posts something on the Whichness of Why so we can really get our philosopher-geek on!

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report

  • sally jones, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Sally, that’s a description of my own experience [of 'slut-shaming'], and my reaction to it. I don’t think you mean to say you’re unsure of it, surely?

    Is this your "direct" question Emma? I can't see any other but this seems more of a rhetorical: Surely you don't question that women are 'slut-shamed' by other women, kind of comment. But as there are other questions being asked here about my views, it would seem further clarification is in order.

    The shaming of women (their bodies, their brains, their souls) by men via the patriarchal institutions they have set up to organise, control and explain the world, is at least as old - and as harmful to a healthy equality between the sexes - as Adam and Eve. I am fairly sure about that.

    However, the 'slut-shaming' of women by women that you have railed against in this, and various other posts, seems to be quite another matter. Megan describes this 'shaming' as "pernicious" and you shout your agreement by lavishly lampooning the women who raised concerns on Boganette about, among other things, wet T-shirt competitions and porn being inherently degrading to women and damaging to young girls in the way that it puts pressure on them to get their tits out and act the fool/flirt/sex kitten. My position is that I think they have a point, and I think it's a better point than yours: I took part in a WTC and had a lot of fun.
    I did say earlier I had experienced shaming of the kind you describe whilst on the dance floor, though again it has been primarily men who have tried to shame me with their "disgust", actual word used by one who roared it in my face. Certain women have turned their heads away and avoided bumping into me in the supermarket ever more. But others have heaped praise, which is fine. But like you (I think) I'm not out there doing my wild thing to earn praise, much less to be hit on, and I don't much like the reduction of what I consider to be my self-expression and art to dirty flirting.

    But in terms of the present discussion I would draw a rather thick line between participating in a wet T-shirt competition and dancing as though no-one is watching you - a million miles from any damn pole. One is a cheap and tacky stunt that will turn some men on whether the participant intends to or not, the other is an act of freedom and self-expression that is more likely to intimidate men than turn them on.

    Emma, if you are tired of the endless argument that comes back to the same place I can assure you that those, like Greer, and little old me - to a much lesser extent, no doubt - who have devoted a good part of their lives to exposing and challenging the patriarchal shaming of Eve (E-T-C!), are so much more tired of the feminist-bashing that goes on and on and on in every sphere of life and contributes directly to the ongoing trivialisation of the F-word as man-hating dogma. It is this shaming that worries me much more than any other as it masks while it maintains the oppression and objectification of women.

    Auckland • Since Sep 2010 • 179 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 21 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.