A few random annoyances.
September 16th, 20061. Why is liking to cook a gendered behavior and why is it unfeminist to take care of my house? Because, really, these are practical life skills and something that needs to be done by someone. This isn’t abstract theory. I’d be lying if I claimed there was no pressure whatsoever to take care of my house, but when I’m the only one with the free time to do it and I don’t actually mind, and if my siblings do their chores also and the boys do as much if not more housework than the girls, what exactly is the problem? Christ. You’d think wanting to eat decent home-cooked food or not wanting the kitchen to be buried in dirty dishes was some sort of crime against feminism. (And I’m not even supportive of so-called “choice feminism”!) I mean…really, people, it’s just something that needs to be taken care of, preferably by someone who doesn’t mind taking care of it.
Now when everyone else refuses to clean the litter box, that’s what pisses me off. Which reminds me…ugh.
2. Why are there no decent candidates running for…well, anything? The gubernatorial election in Colorado is specifically what I’m talking about. So there’s the Republican candidate, terrifying in most every way, and the Democrat who, true to the party line, is less evil and doesn’t seem to actually stand for anything without scowling about how he disapproves personally first (see: stance on abortion), and then there’s the Libertarian who is great on women’s issues and gay rights but is, well, Libertarian, and thus whom I cannot vote for in good conscience as the commie I am.
Okay, that’s oversimplifying. Her stance on immigration terrifies me, as does the general Libertarian philosophy regarding social welfare programs, which she definitely supports. Which brings me to the big point: all the candidates have fairly inadequate platforms regarding immigration. This is a big deal to me. I get to hear people using “immigration” as a thinly-veiled pretense for their racism every single day. “Immigration” as an excuse to ignore the complex race and class issues that are actually at the core of the matter. “Immigration” as a front to promote hate speech against not only undocumented workers, but pretty much anyone who vaguely resembles what they imagine lurks south of the border (where everything is Mexico), which includes anyone with darker skin, a Spanish-sounding last name, and/or a funny accent — because if you’re not white you must be “illegal”. No other explanation for it.
And I’m sick to death of this. Beauprez’s the worst; his website from what I’ve seen (and I didn’t linger very long) seems to be fairly tame compared to the propaganda his campaign’s been plastering all over Denver. It’s all xenophobic, reactionary hate speech. That’s all it is. At least Ritter’s only committed to enforcing the laws we already have, punishing companies who hire undocumented workers and the like, which I can support from a legal perspective even if it isn’t particularly useful or humane. (My personal opinions and proposed solutions? Maybe another time.)
I hate feeling these split loyalties. I can’t find a candidate who seems anywhere near decent on all the issues personally important to me: gay rights, women’s rights, immigration, and a general commitment to helping people in poverty you know, not starve or die from preventable illnesses and that kind of thing. The one that’s okay on the first two is terrible on the others. The one that’s more moderate on the last two is not that great on the first two. There was recently a post on the feminist community on LiveJournal urging people to vote for Winkler because she’s unabashedly pro-choice…without realizing that, for some of us affected by other issues, that’s not enough on its own. When I hear people talking about how “Mexicans are less than human” (actual quote) and about what they want to do to “those Hispanics”, you know what? Whether I, the queer Latina girl who mostly doesn’t like guys and isn’t sexually active, can get an abortion is the lesser threat to my immediate wellbeing.
3. If you have to preface a statement with “I’m not racist…” whatever comes out of your mouth next is almost certainly racist, and if not, it’s at the least going to be ignorant, poorly thought-out, problematic, or insensitive. Ditto for “I’m not sexist”, “I’m not homophobic”, etc. I know it’s been said before but it bears repeating.
3. a) If you feel the need to include someone’s race when talking about them in a situation where you would never think of attaching a racial slur if they were white, you’re racist. Sorry. (Or not. Yeah, not sorry.)
3. b) If you don’t want to be around me because you feel “judged” because I think you’re racist, maybe you shouldn’t say racist things. No, I’m not going to feel bad for leveling judgement after you just said something horribly offensive about the ethnic group I happen to, um, belong to. Especially if by “horribly offensive” I’m just trying to be polite about the fact that you just told me you want to commit what would legally constitute a hate crime.
4. Okay, I think I feel better until something else comes to mind.
5. Oh yeah, and I’m going to see the Dalai Lama speak tomorrow and that’s going to be really, really awesome. This isn’t an annoyance…unless maybe we start talking about how I feel about Tibet. I guess that’s another discussion for another time.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:01 am
How exactly do you define “choice feminism”? The only way I’ve seen it be used before this is when Linda Hirshman was trying to justify telling women what to do with their lives.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Mostly people who say “feminism is all about choice!” and justify any choice made by a woman as an act of feminism, even when women choose to act in a blatently anti-feminist manner. So, yeah, a lot of the time when people use this phrase it seems to be radical feminists implying only their choice is the “right” choice, but it still stands that not every choice is feminist, either. If that makes any sense. It’s late.
Probably that entire statement needs some more expansion and clarification. I understand that it’s problematic to claim that just because I choose to do certain things, I’m automatically exempt from examining my own motivations; in fact, the opposite is true, since I’ve been known to say that if what you “choose” to do somehow simply coincides with what’s expected of you, maybe you need to think about what you’re doing a little harder. But, I mean…cooking? Everyone, as far as I’m concerned, should know how to cook. Basic survival skill, right? When people claim that my desire to take care of others (like, I don’t know…my pets? younger siblings? children and animals, here!) is me buying into the patriarchy and going along with my assigned role, I’m inclined to call bullshit. Is caring about others a bad thing? I mean…what? Why would you even SAY such a thing, even given that, yes, some women are indeed coerced into a caregiver role? How can there possibly be something wrong with caring for your family? I’m a bad feminist for liking to take care of the people I care about and because this happens to make me happy? How is not taking care of the people close to you even remotely morally acceptable for anyone, feminist or not?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Well, lots of people don’t take care of the people closest to them. Lots of men (and to a lesser extent, women) abandon their families to pursue other interests, and as long as they send cheques and birthday cards and show up for the occasional visit, society really doesn’t heap a lot of moral condemnation on them. They’re “trying,” to be good fathers (or mothers), even if the results are that their children never actually get to know them in the slightest.
You make an excellent point about choice feminism. All choices cannot possibly be good just because women are making them. Choices are a beginning, but GOOD choices strike me as a much bigger accomplishment.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
But, see, you’re setting up a strawfeminist with the “choice feminist” arguments. I’ve never seen anyone identify as a “choice feminist” but I have seen it often used to try to shut down discussion on the topic of choice before they start. And, furthermore, by the first part of your definition, people would see me as a “choice feminist” because I often say that feminism is about choice. Because, to me, it is.
The line, of course, is that just because I believe that a person should have the right to make their choices freely — whether they be good or bad — doesn’t mean that I think every choice a woman makes is feminist. Sometimes it is, like when I made the choice to go against my “preferences” and stop shaving because I questioned my own motives behind my preference and wanted to make a feminist statement. Sometimes it’s not, like your example with the cooking which, while a feminist lens can be applied to it, is inherently neutral in my opinion. Sometimes it’s anti-feminist, like when I was younger and I equated “girly” with “stupid” and “weak”.
The problem here is that people see “choice feminism” then they see a feminist say that she believes that “feminism is about choice” and what conclusion are they going to draw? From what you say and what feminists like Hirshman say, it’s very likely that most of them will assume that we’re “choice feminists” who think that women engaging in anti-feminists acts is “empowering” or whatever. I, for one, don’t like being tarred as some idiot because I think that the discourse of choice is a fundamental one to feminism.
Why can’t you just say that you don’t think that every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice? To me, using “choice feminist” is the feminist infighting version of the word “feminazi” — there are people who say that they use it to differentiate between “good feminists” and “militant feminists”, but the truth is that the liberal use of the word contributes to the bad rap that feminists get.
[Small tangent: It actually appears that "chioice feminism" like the word "feminazi" was coined not by a movement, but rather by a person (Linda Hirshman) seeking to discredit a concept that they didn't like.]
September 19th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Um…because I wasn’t thinking? (Indefensible, I know.
Yeah, definitely a poor choice of words. I don’t disagree with you. I’ll be mindful to avoid that phrase in the future because apparently what I meant to say didn’t really get across very well.
But I have been in discussion with people who seem to believe that every choice is a feminist choice by the virtue of a woman making that decision. (Mostly on the feminist comm on LJ, I hasten to add — not really representative of people who’ve seriously thought about these issues or who know what they’re talking about. A lot of the comments there are blatently anti-feminist or just barely seem applicable to any form of feminism I’ve ever encountered…posted by people who claim they’re feminists. Not necessarily even differences in opinion or different schools of feminist thought, but stuff that’s blatently anti-woman, but I know you read Feminist so you probably know what I’m talking about. A lot of the commenters there don’t seem to actually think about anything they say.) So I’m really not trying to attack a strawfeminist here, but a real and frustrating argument I have seen.
I was going to write more but it was getting pretty long and kind of off-topic and so I’ll just put in a post.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
[...] earlbecke: A few random annoyances. [...]
September 20th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Naw, in this context it’s totally defensible. Having looked around (I wanted to verify my claim about the origins of “choice feminism”) I’ve actually seen popular bloggers like Amanda of Pandagon using it, so I can see why you would too. And, hey, on the good side it’s given me a lot of food for thought and made me figure out why I hate that term.
But, yeah, I think we’re basically in agreement here. I know what you’re talking about in regards to the feminist LJ comm. If I see it, I usually say something to the person or contact the mods. The funny/stupid thing is that the feminist LJ really helped me to solidify my feminism back in the day. It really drove home concepts like privilege, and the way that language can hurt, and why little battles matter, too…
September 20th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Yeah, the feminist LJ community was really helpful to me back a few years ago when I was nervous about identifying as a feminist (yes, I was one of those teenagers who had been brainwashed into being afraid to use the term, and no, I’m not sure why or how). I guess that’s probably the only reason I still hang around. That…or masochism.