Feminsm's appropriation and exploitation.

[Memette]

RobtheIdealist

"In many discussions, conventional feminism is not so much an analysis of patriarchy as it is an emphasis on equality of the sexes and a sense of camaraderie between women. This broad and vague definition allows it to operate as a big tent ideology that absorbs any and every idea and person dealing with women and gender. Even when women like my mother object to its norms and say 'I am not a feminist', they are still viewed as “feminist” because their work relates to women in some way."

The problem with feminism, to me it seems, is that it has this pretentious rhetoric that "everyone can be their own feminist" while having very centralized de facto principles that their activist events and policies adhere to. For example, you can "say" that you are Marxist feminist, but the rest of the feminist movement is Capitalist and will not integrate it in the mainstream movement. Feminism boasts a subgroup of Marxism simply because Marxism has a broad range of beneficiaries-- including women. This is just an excuse to gain the number of feminist supporters while not actually incorporating their ideologies into the movement. All take with no give. Exploiting Marxists and other anti capitalist ideologies to support a movement that remains Capitalist in its broader goals (ex: wage equality instead of the elimination of wage dependency).

The other thing is women of color, most especially Black women. Because feminism as a movement considers the feminine gender identity as a traditional gender role that needs to be abolished, the needs of women who have been completely robbed of their feminine gender identity due to slavery go ignored. Being considered masculine, hyper sexual, and emotionally invulnerable due to caricatures such as Jezebel, Mammy, and Sapphire go completely ignored in favor of getting rid of "oppressive gender roles" that White women have been infantilized by for centuries. That is not to say that such a thing is okay. That is also not to say Black women want to assimilate with Eurocentric femininity. However we do want our vulnerabilities acknowledged, and a little more normalization of enjoying traditionally feminine activities. But through feminism's predominately sex positive initiative, the needs of Black women for instance, who have been attributed with promiscuity through the Jezebel go ignored.

Basically what I feel is that feminism as a movement, when stripped of its empty rhetoric that there's a type of it for everyone, wants to assimilate with the traditional masculine gender identity. And this alienates people such as Black women, trans women, etc. who want to embrace a more feminine gender identity. I wrote about this more in detail here if you're interested. But yeah....anyways! Discuss!

[Tiberius_The_Space_Viking]

I believe feminism has become less of a branch of social sciences and has become more of a "club" where people sign up because it caters to their subjective feelings about social issues.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Eh, I don't take Marxist feminism as exploiting Marxist ideals. It's ultimately critical of capitalistic structures and how they reinforce and propagate patriarchal social structure, and by extension critical of capitalistic feminism. Or at least, that was my impression. I also got the impression that Marxist feminism was less dogmatic than mainstream Marxism in that it acknowledges that class struggle isn't the only ultimate root cause for inequality. I might be wrong on that, though.

Not going to touch on the racial aspect because mainstream feminism is hella ******** racist.

And your wording in the last bit about assimilating into traditional masculine gender identity is a much more elegant way of phrasing something I've been clunkily saying.

[Project 429]

It's a really bad idea to divide and conquer your own movement before you have political power. You get senate seats and then you start eating your own young. The tumblr feminist movement might just explode before it gets off the ground. You see this kind of internal bickering more and more often. That whole #WhiteFeministRants episode? Solid gold.

The best part is the anonymous nature of the internet makes this incredibly exploitable by outside parties. *wink**wink**nudge**nudge*

[Onolia]

Memette

RobtheIdealist

"In many discussions, conventional feminism is not so much an analysis of patriarchy as it is an emphasis on equality of the sexes and a sense of camaraderie between women. This broad and vague definition allows it to operate as a big tent ideology that absorbs any and every idea and person dealing with women and gender. Even when women like my mother object to its norms and say 'I am not a feminist', they are still viewed as “feminist” because their work relates to women in some way."

The problem with feminism, to me it seems, is that it has this pretentious rhetoric that "everyone can be their own feminist" while having very centralized de facto principles that their activist events and policies adhere to. For example, you can "say" that you are Marxist feminist, but the rest of the feminist movement is Capitalist and will not integrate it in the mainstream movement. Feminism boasts a subgroup of Marxism simply because Marxism has a broad range of beneficiaries-- including women. This is just an excuse to gain the number of feminist supporters while not actually incorporating their ideologies into the movement. All take with no give. Exploiting Marxists and other anti capitalist ideologies to support a movement that remains Capitalist in its broader goals (ex: wage equality instead of the elimination of wage dependency).

The other thing is women of color, most especially Black women. Because feminism as a movement considers the feminine gender identity as a traditional gender role that needs to be abolished, the needs of women who have been completely robbed of their feminine gender identity due to slavery go ignored. Being considered masculine, hyper sexual, and emotionally invulnerable due to caricatures such as Jezebel, Mammy, and Sapphire go completely ignored in favor of getting rid of "oppressive gender roles" that White women have been infantilized by for centuries. That is not to say that such a thing is okay. That is also not to say Black women want to assimilate with Eurocentric femininity. However we do want our vulnerabilities acknowledged, and a little more normalization of enjoying traditionally feminine activities. But through feminism's predominately sex positive initiative, the needs of Black women for instance, who have been attributed with promiscuity through the Jezebel go ignored.

Basically what I feel is that feminism as a movement, when stripped of its empty rhetoric that there's a type of it for everyone, wants to assimilate with the traditional masculine gender identity. And this alienates people such as Black women, trans women, etc. who want to embrace a more feminine gender identity. I wrote about this more in detail here if you're interested. But yeah....anyways! Discuss!

It's a little too generalised. You have to remember that feminism does not exist in a vacuum and has to be applied in tangent with another academic field. Consequently feminism is enormously diverse and exists in many forms, some of which are pretty useful for understanding gender- particularly when it comes to research. Furthermore if you are looking for one universal model that applies to ALL women, then you are pretty much looking for a pipe dream. For example you use the phrase 'black women' but technically you are also using it in conjunction with other adjectives like American, Christian ect.
As for Marxism, like feminism there is a plurality of beliefs, and whilst Marxism is critical of capitalism, not every vein of Marxism is anti-capitalist. Marx himself saw capitalism as social catalyst which increased social mobility and sped of technological development through competition.
Any whoo...there is a massive of diversity of feminist beliefs out that, and because there is no sacred feminist canon you are at liberty to pick and choose what you will.

[Memette]

Onolia

Memette

RobtheIdealist

"In many discussions, conventional feminism is not so much an analysis of patriarchy as it is an emphasis on equality of the sexes and a sense of camaraderie between women. This broad and vague definition allows it to operate as a big tent ideology that absorbs any and every idea and person dealing with women and gender. Even when women like my mother object to its norms and say 'I am not a feminist', they are still viewed as “feminist” because their work relates to women in some way."

The problem with feminism, to me it seems, is that it has this pretentious rhetoric that "everyone can be their own feminist" while having very centralized de facto principles that their activist events and policies adhere to. For example, you can "say" that you are Marxist feminist, but the rest of the feminist movement is Capitalist and will not integrate it in the mainstream movement. Feminism boasts a subgroup of Marxism simply because Marxism has a broad range of beneficiaries-- including women. This is just an excuse to gain the number of feminist supporters while not actually incorporating their ideologies into the movement. All take with no give. Exploiting Marxists and other anti capitalist ideologies to support a movement that remains Capitalist in its broader goals (ex: wage equality instead of the elimination of wage dependency).

The other thing is women of color, most especially Black women. Because feminism as a movement considers the feminine gender identity as a traditional gender role that needs to be abolished, the needs of women who have been completely robbed of their feminine gender identity due to slavery go ignored. Being considered masculine, hyper sexual, and emotionally invulnerable due to caricatures such as Jezebel, Mammy, and Sapphire go completely ignored in favor of getting rid of "oppressive gender roles" that White women have been infantilized by for centuries. That is not to say that such a thing is okay. That is also not to say Black women want to assimilate with Eurocentric femininity. However we do want our vulnerabilities acknowledged, and a little more normalization of enjoying traditionally feminine activities. But through feminism's predominately sex positive initiative, the needs of Black women for instance, who have been attributed with promiscuity through the Jezebel go ignored.

Basically what I feel is that feminism as a movement, when stripped of its empty rhetoric that there's a type of it for everyone, wants to assimilate with the traditional masculine gender identity. And this alienates people such as Black women, trans women, etc. who want to embrace a more feminine gender identity. I wrote about this more in detail here if you're interested. But yeah....anyways! Discuss!

It's a little too generalised. You have to remember that feminism does not exist in a vacuum and has to be applied in tangent with another academic field. Consequently feminism is enormously diverse and exists in many forms, some of which are pretty useful for understanding gender- particularly when it comes to research. Furthermore if you are looking for one universal model that applies to ALL women, then you are pretty much looking for a pipe dream. For example you use the phrase 'black women' but technically you are also using it in conjunction with other adjectives like American, Christian ect.
As for Marxism, like feminism there is a plurality of beliefs, and whilst Marxism is critical of capitalism, not every vein of Marxism is anti-capitalist. Marx himself saw capitalism as social catalyst which increased social mobility and sped of technological development through competition.
Any whoo...there is a massive of diversity of feminist beliefs out that, and because there is no sacred feminist canon you are at liberty to pick and choose what you will.

I am saying that the "diversity" of feminism itself is pretentious. People call themselves feminists without actually getting any support from the movement to transform their goals into actual political policy.That is not what a movement is supposed to do. A movement is designed to achieve goals with consensus from point A to point B.

Project 429

It's a really bad idea to divide and conquer your own movement before you have political power. You get senate seats and then you start eating your own young. The tumblr feminist movement might just explode before it gets off the ground. You see this kind of internal bickering more and more often. That whole #WhiteFeministRants episode? Solid gold.

My point is that because feminism covertly alienates people despite claiming to be "the" women's movement, it isn't really "you're own movement" for certain people to be divided over, much less conquered. No matter how desperately people want to believe they are a part of it for the sake of an empty sense of sisterhood....no matter how much people want it to be a tent ideology, it can't be. When the general activist goals are centralized, it's a pretense to call it versatile to other ideologies whose goals run in contradiction to what feminism is actually doing in practice.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Memette

My point is that because feminism covertly alienates people despite claiming to be "the" women's movement, it isn't really "you're own movement" to be conquered for many individuals; no matter how desperately they want to believe they are a part of it for the sake of an empty sense of sisterhood. No matter how much people want it to be a tent ideology it can't be. When the general activist goals are centralized, it's a pretense to call it versatile to other ideologies whose goals run in contradiction to what feminism is actually doing in practice.

So what exactly is your point in the end? Failures of feminism, the racism, the splintering into squabbling sub-groups, a failure a set clear goal and focus upon it, you have identified, but what is your solution?

Is feminism meant to be abandoned in favour of something else? Is one form of feminism (say marxist feminism over capitalistic feminism? Or vice versa?) correct over another? Furthermore, what happens when feminism comes up against a new movement made to address the problems feminism has ignored? If, as you seem to say, their goals are directly opposed to each other, then they will end up attacking each other. We will be jus about back to where we started. Efforts to obtain equality for women will be opposing each other and what we are meant to be doing, as a community, will be just as unclear. The only difference between that situation and now, that I can see, is that people will have better awareness of who disagrees with who. Instead of people thinking they can accept many different ideas, even ones which are opposed to what they think, to address the discrimination woman face, they will be actively opposing each other. While this situation is helpful in the sense that people understand their position for what they are, it doesn't early improve the situation with regards to understanding and eliminate discrimination against women. White feminists, for example, who are ignorant of the discrimination people of could face, and how their position is complicit in that, will remain so. Rather than learning about the errors they have made, they will just claim activists who point out the problems with their position are wrong and against tackling discrimination against women.

To me it seems you are merely giving a redux of the insight that feminism, as a movement, ignored the discrimination many women face (i.e. those who are not middle class and white). The argument which preceded the development of "a feminism for everyone" in the 80s/90s. I don't really think it moves efforts to tackle discrimination against women forward at all. Indeed, I think it sort of repeats the errors of "a feminism for everyone." You seem to be suggesting that, rather than actually setting out what we ought to be doing to tackle discrimination against women, that people who have had their struggles ignored by mainstream feminism should "get their own movement." Rather than "a feminism for everyone" you seem to be suggesting "a movement for everyone," a stance which merely repeats the major problem of not giving society a clear understanding of what discrimination is occurring and how we need to address it.

[Onolia]

Memette

Onolia

Memette

RobtheIdealist

"In many discussions, conventional feminism is not so much an analysis of patriarchy as it is an emphasis on equality of the sexes and a sense of camaraderie between women. This broad and vague definition allows it to operate as a big tent ideology that absorbs any and every idea and person dealing with women and gender. Even when women like my mother object to its norms and say 'I am not a feminist', they are still viewed as “feminist” because their work relates to women in some way."

The problem with feminism, to me it seems, is that it has this pretentious rhetoric that "everyone can be their own feminist" while having very centralized de facto principles that their activist events and policies adhere to. For example, you can "say" that you are Marxist feminist, but the rest of the feminist movement is Capitalist and will not integrate it in the mainstream movement. Feminism boasts a subgroup of Marxism simply because Marxism has a broad range of beneficiaries-- including women. This is just an excuse to gain the number of feminist supporters while not actually incorporating their ideologies into the movement. All take with no give. Exploiting Marxists and other anti capitalist ideologies to support a movement that remains Capitalist in its broader goals (ex: wage equality instead of the elimination of wage dependency).

The other thing is women of color, most especially Black women. Because feminism as a movement considers the feminine gender identity as a traditional gender role that needs to be abolished, the needs of women who have been completely robbed of their feminine gender identity due to slavery go ignored. Being considered masculine, hyper sexual, and emotionally invulnerable due to caricatures such as Jezebel, Mammy, and Sapphire go completely ignored in favor of getting rid of "oppressive gender roles" that White women have been infantilized by for centuries. That is not to say that such a thing is okay. That is also not to say Black women want to assimilate with Eurocentric femininity. However we do want our vulnerabilities acknowledged, and a little more normalization of enjoying traditionally feminine activities. But through feminism's predominately sex positive initiative, the needs of Black women for instance, who have been attributed with promiscuity through the Jezebel go ignored.

Basically what I feel is that feminism as a movement, when stripped of its empty rhetoric that there's a type of it for everyone, wants to assimilate with the traditional masculine gender identity. And this alienates people such as Black women, trans women, etc. who want to embrace a more feminine gender identity. I wrote about this more in detail here if you're interested. But yeah....anyways! Discuss!

It's a little too generalised. You have to remember that feminism does not exist in a vacuum and has to be applied in tangent with another academic field. Consequently feminism is enormously diverse and exists in many forms, some of which are pretty useful for understanding gender- particularly when it comes to research. Furthermore if you are looking for one universal model that applies to ALL women, then you are pretty much looking for a pipe dream. For example you use the phrase 'black women' but technically you are also using it in conjunction with other adjectives like American, Christian ect.
As for Marxism, like feminism there is a plurality of beliefs, and whilst Marxism is critical of capitalism, not every vein of Marxism is anti-capitalist. Marx himself saw capitalism as social catalyst which increased social mobility and sped of technological development through competition.
Any whoo...there is a massive of diversity of feminist beliefs out that, and because there is no sacred feminist canon you are at liberty to pick and choose what you will.

I am saying that the "diversity" of feminism itself is pretentious. People call themselves feminists without actually getting any support from the movement to transform their goals into actual political policy.That is not what a movement is supposed to do. A movement is designed to achieve goals with consensus from point A to point B.

It's not simply a movement- it's transcended that state. It's a movement, a perspective, a host of ideologies, a philosophy blah blah blah. Your working conceptualization of feminism is a little too 1960s- in fact your understanding of sociological discourse is a little clunky. I mean 'diversity' is pretentious- well s**t just about every sociological discourse has undergone expansion and fragmentation. Society is fluid and sociological perspectives need to be reflexive to the societal tides of change. It makes perfect sense that social perspectives move along with the times... I mean what use would the western 1970s feminism be in the twentieth first century where the majority of laws and rights are sex blind? More importantly what exactly is the feminism of the twentieth century about- cos if you think it's primarily political then you are really barking up the wrong tree. Most modern feminism revolves around gender construct and social representations rather then social policy making and political activism.

[ExodusNirvana]

Wow. I'm glad thread starter is having this topic of conversation. I would add my own two cents but I don't want to get strung up for my perceived ignorance of women's blah blah blah. This is why we(black people) shouldn't be getting behind any sort of movement that we aren't the heads of. I don't get black people who jump on the MRA tip, the lgbt tip or the feminist tip only for things to go back to business as usual once they accomplish their goals. Use the movement, don't let the movement use you. You can believe whatever you want to believe, just don't be a pawn to other peoples interests.

[Times Of War]

It's a special interest group. It focuses on a set of emotionally charged issues while claiming wild statistics or often unfalsifiable statements and claiming them as fact, for the entire purpose of silencing those who disagree with them. They aren't for free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice, or equality. They are a special interest group that wishes to achieve political power for kickbacks and privileges to a select group of its constituency, just like every other special interest group.

[HyperActiveEmo205]

ExodusNirvana

Wow. I'm glad thread starter is having this topic of conversation. I would add my own two cents but I don't want to get strung up for my perceived ignorance of women's blah blah blah. This is why we(black people) shouldn't be getting behind any sort of movement that we aren't the heads of. I don't get black people who jump on the MRA tip, the lgbt tip or the feminist tip only for things to go back to business as usual once they accomplish their goals. Use the movement, don't let the movement use you. You can believe whatever you want to believe, just don't be a pawn to other peoples interests.

See but that's the thing, if you are not apart of one of the major privilege classes (I.e. Male, White, and Upper-middle class) then you are doomed to be forgotten once the major goal is achieved. For example, suffrage movements after the Civil War in America were lead by Women and Blacks, both fighting for the same purpose. Yet, when it actually reached the politics, Black men were given the ability to vote. When women, both black and white, tried to get on the docket as well, they were pushed aside since they were not men. They were told that it was "[The black men's] time to shine". (Side note, if this was not the case, then I apologize for my ignorance. I learned this in my history class [In America] so of course, this might not be so reliable)

I do agree with what you say. It seems to be something of a higher perspective kind of thing, where we are unable to actually do any kind of intersectional work with other groups because of either A. the contradictory nature of our experiences, since they are being experienced in two completely separate ways or B. there is another invisible force that we are not recognizing yet that prevents that kind of work, probably like human nature (Although I loath using that word, I can't think of another way to phrase it.)

[Roih Uvet]

Project 429

It's a really bad idea to divide and conquer your own movement before you have political power. You get senate seats and then you start eating your own young. The tumblr feminist movement might just explode before it gets off the ground. You see this kind of internal bickering more and more often. That whole #WhiteFeministRants episode? Solid gold.

The best part is the anonymous nature of the internet makes this incredibly exploitable by outside parties. *wink**wink**nudge**nudge*

Dude, I want to start a huge flame war by raising the question, "Should white women be allowed to reject the sexual advances of black men on account of their race?"

[Roih Uvet]

ExodusNirvana

Wow. I'm glad thread starter is having this topic of conversation. I would add my own two cents but I don't want to get strung up for my perceived ignorance of women's blah blah blah. This is why we(black people) shouldn't be getting behind any sort of movement that we aren't the heads of. I don't get black people who jump on the MRA tip, the lgbt tip or the feminist tip only for things to go back to business as usual once they accomplish their goals. Use the movement, don't let the movement use you. You can believe whatever you want to believe, just don't be a pawn to other peoples interests.

What it comes down to is an issue of prioritization. I think the most major issue in the United States is class, not race or sex or whatever else. Most of the poor blacks I know seem to think the same thing, as do most poor women I know. But there are some like yourself I think that race is still the big issue.

I wish there were a way to discern which has it the worst. Do poor people overall have the worst lot in life? Or is it black people? I wish there were some objective metric of quality of life that we could compare these demographics to each other using. But I don't think there is. At least not one that is terribly accurate. This leaves the prioritization up to subjective judgement.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Roih Uvet

ExodusNirvana

Wow. I'm glad thread starter is having this topic of conversation. I would add my own two cents but I don't want to get strung up for my perceived ignorance of women's blah blah blah. This is why we(black people) shouldn't be getting behind any sort of movement that we aren't the heads of. I don't get black people who jump on the MRA tip, the lgbt tip or the feminist tip only for things to go back to business as usual once they accomplish their goals. Use the movement, don't let the movement use you. You can believe whatever you want to believe, just don't be a pawn to other peoples interests.

What it comes down to is an issue of prioritization. I think the most major issue in the United States is class, not race or sex or whatever else. Most of the poor blacks I know seem to think the same thing, as do most poor women I know. But there are some like yourself I think that race is still the big issue.

I wish there were a way to discern which has it the worst. Do poor people overall have the worst lot in life? Or is it black people? I wish there were some objective metric of quality of life that we could compare these demographics to each other using. But I don't think there is. At least not one that is terribly accurate. This leaves the prioritization up to subjective judgement.

You have missed the point: there isn't a way to determine who has it worse. Trying to do so is a mistake because any issue you have does not disappear just because someone else had one. The demographics are not meant to be compared. They cannot be. To compare them, to somehow decide who has it worst, always entails ignoring the issue someone is facing.

This is what the concept of "privilege" is about. When it is said people have "white privilege," the claim is not a measurement that their quality of their life must be, overall, must be better than any person of colour (some people of colour are rich), but rather that they, as a "white" person, don't experiences certain issues of discrimination that black people do. The point of "privilege" is to stop people concluding that, because a person has an advantage in one area (e.g. class), it doesn't mean they aren's disadvantaged in other areas (e.g. sex, race).

So it is not a matter of subjective judgement at all. The issues faced by various groups are always objective and cannot be dismissed, even when they are heavily advantage in one area (thus, poor white people still have "white privilege" over the rich black people, even though they have less economic and material freedom).