I Just Don't Fit In Anywhere!
As you may remember, I recently joined the Feminist branch of my university. I've had several interesting meetings about The Vagina Monologues, a Take Back The Night march up fraternity row, tabling for health care and many other things. I like my little group. Sort of.
The problem is, I can't keep my mouth shut. I know some won't view that as a problem, but it generally tends to keep me in hot water. I've come to accept it as a basic function of my personality, and I think I'm not particularly rude or hateful about it. I just state my opinion. Or, when things are particularly galling, I rail against something.
I think I'm sort of the black sheep of the feminist group right now. I don't seem to be able to agree with them on too many things. Most of the time, it's because I think they're a little short sighted. They may be a university group, but they can't seem to see beyond the Student Center sometimes. Typical example of how it happens:
Me: You know, one of the things we could do is make sure that all the pharmacies have Plan B stocked, so that women have access to emergency contraception in this county.
Charismatic Club Leader: University health services has it available for $10.
Me: If you're the spouse of someone at the university, you don't have access to university health services. Or if you're a woman in general in Mon County who is not a college student. What if university students who don't live in the dorms want to go to a pharmacy that is more private in the part of the county they live in?
*Crickets chirp and strange stares ensue*
This is one small example. Recently, we've butted heads on two items not related to each other: Hillary Clinton and the use of the word "cunt". See, we have a discussion after every meeting on some preordained topic picked by the Charismatic Club Leader. For one meeting, it was "Hillary '08: Can She Win?"
Apparently I fail as a feminist because I really don't like Hillary Clinton that much. Boy, that brought the hammer down. I had five people trying to tell me at once that she was a wonderful person and would be a wonderful leader. I don't like how she voted on Iraq. I don't think she's so stupid to have believed that Iraq was a real threat to our country. Most regular non-senator people I talked to didn't believe that even when the "intelligence" was laid out. Most non-senator people I know were in favor of more inspections, at least at first.
I was told she had to play politics and prove that a woman could run a military. What the hell difference does it make in saying that about a Republican candidate--that he played politics, he's really such a nice man in private, so concerned about feminist issues, he just can't say those too loudly, because he has to be electable first?
So I called shenanigans. If a woman is going to be voted in solely based on the fact that being a woman gives her some kind of unique perception (which was also one of the arguments I got, although we would never say the same thing about a man), then she damn well better be a loud and proud feminist. She needs to make issues like childcare, healthcare, family leave, equal pay, abortion access and a whole other list of "nonpressing" issues seem like very, very pressing issues.
Otherwise, I'm going to vote for who I think would be the best leader to provide for those issues. And I don't care for her very much. And I don't think it makes me less of a feminist to say so. We don't want men to judge us based solely on our genitals--I don't see why I should be expected to look at women with the same idea.
I also got out of line for suggesting that "cunt" should not be made into a mainstream word of "power", like some homosexuals use "fag" and some blacks use "nigger." I don't think those words give any empowerment at all, other than to those few who actually use them amongst their friends. They are hate words and should die out like hate should die out.
If Charasmatic Club Leader called me a "cuntrag", no matter how affectionately, I'd probably treat her like I would a man who called me that--I'd punch her. Having actually been called cunt in a nonaffectionate way, I can tell you it would pain and hurt me to hear women taking it on as if it was somehow empowering. Why take on the language of the abuser? Why not kill it out and make new language of your own?
I don't seem to fit in anywhere. At least after I finished my rant on the "cunt" discussion, though, five other people said nearly simultaneously, "Me Too!"
-- Virgil
P.S. I don't want this to turn into a Hillary or feminist bashing or favoring contest, please. I'm just stating my simple opinion, of which, I might add, I'm entitled to hold.
posted by contemplator at Tuesday, February 20, 2007
13 Comments:
"The problem is, I can't keep my mouth shut. I know some won't view that as a problem, but it generally tends to keep me in hot water."
That's not a problem. That's a virtue. It is only a vice to the conformists who wish to make everyone else believe what they believe, refusing to question their own doctrine. The skeptic approach is the correct approach.
"I think I'm sort of the black sheep of the feminist group right now. I don't seem to be able to agree with them on too many things. Most of the time, it's because I think they're a little short sighted."
Please, tell me more. I am all ears. And my ears are big, too. Big, black and pointy, sometimes flapping over.
"Charismatic Club Leader"
Note the word 'Charismatic', which actually originated in fundamentalist christianity. It refers to a preacher who relies upon emotional reasoning and presentation, rather than hard, cold, logic. Such a word says quite a bit about the people who join the feminist organization, especially if the members use the word to describe themselves.
"*Crickets chirp and strange stares ensue*"
How pathetic. This is really proof that such meetings are really designed to glorify whoever is in charge. If they were really serious about the issues, they would have taken the time to discuss it. But because they didn't, you have proven that these girls have joined for self-righteous and vain reasons.
"Apparently I fail as a feminist because I really don't like Hillary Clinton that much. Boy, that brought the hammer down. I had five people trying to tell me at once that she was a wonderful person and would be a wonderful leader."
If Hillary wasn't a woman and the wife of a former president, as well as being the top choice of the DLC for president, then these girls wouldn't even care. Hillary's voting record is quite centrist, at best. In addition to voting for Iraq, she voted for the patriot act, twice. It just proves that she is nothing more than an opportunist, always jumping behind the latest hot headed politcal bandwagon, just like most of the democrats.
The Republican Party tends to stick more to principle, unfortunately, many of their priciples suck. The only reason why I ever vote democrat is because of lack of evil principles, rather than having good principles.
"P.S. I don't want this to turn into a Hillary or feminist bashing or favoring contest, please. I'm just stating my simple opinion, of which, I might add, I'm entitled to hold."
The goals of feminism that call for equal treatment for women are quite noble. The problem with these kind of organizations, just like many organizations, are the evangelist types, who get personally insulted by merely being questioned.
The only reason I would vote for Hillary is if her only opponent was some right wing nutcase. But if it was a contest between those two and a bag of rocks, I would choose the bag of rocks!
I'm a writer, so I chose the word "charismatic" on purpose, you know. I was a little worried going in that it would be a sort of Cult of Personality--most of those things usually are.
They aren't bad, or anything. I just think they tend to be a little short sighted.
And I agree with you about Hillary. If she weren't so popular, but another woman was, they wouldn't be championing her right now. And I still think if we're going to vote for a woman just because she's a woman, that she damned well better be a flaming feminist. (Not that I don't want everyone to be one anyway).
Other things me & the fems disagree on: The changing of one's last name when you get married; the having of kids. One said they didn't want any "spawn", and I got fairly snappy, reminding them that plenty of women choose to have kids whom they don't consider "spawn", and that doesn't make them any less committed to equality. If anything, it makes them more of a worker for the cause.
I like your ears, too. They remind me of a set on a dog I used to own...
Well, in regards to marriage, i feel that it should only be a contract recognized on an individual basis between the two people. The two (or more, if it is polygamy/polyandry) should be the ones setting up the rules and terms of the contract.
For instance, if the contract calls for the married spouse to change her last name, that is the only appropriate time for the government to enforce as such. Otherwise, the woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her name.
Minimizing the state/government mandated restrictions will go a long way in reducing the workload on the divorce courts, as well potentially even reducing divorce itself.
Other things about Hillary that I don't like is that she seems to have a creeping scent of nanny-statism. She has actively worked with the Republicans on the flag-burning amendment, as well as censoring video games.
I agree with you in saying that a feminist should at least evaluate each candidate on a case-by-case basis, rather than a clitoris vs penis basis.
But just out of wild curiousity, what forms of legislation are the feminists proposing nowadays?
BTW, in terms of a "flaming" feminist, I don't think that's a good of an idea as it may seem to you. I would greatly prefer a reasoning feminist who believes in fairness, who believes that women should not have more rights then men, or who get all flustered when some guy makes a crude joke or remark. I am very skeptical of these 'womynists', who seem to demand that women be sovereign in society, and who seem to think that they have the right to not be offended. Those ladies are left wing equivalents of fundamentalists.
p.s. Basically I am advocating for equality and equality only. The far right wants guys to be in charge and have fewer rights for women. The far left wants women to be in charge and have fewer rights for men. I am in the dead center, with everyone having equal rights.
Very few feminists want women to be "superior". And generally, what men take to be women getting "flustered" at off color jokes is usually the result of not normally being on the same kind of receiving end of such jokes because of men's historical positioning in society for hundreds of years. It's no different to most women to make "crotch jokes" than it would be to black people to make jokes about blacks at their expense. It's just that most white men don't have an equivalent experience, so they don't really understand where the frustration comes from.
Most feminists want equality and nothing more. We're too busy to have to tell men what to do. Unfortunately, inequality is built in to the American Way. That's just how our country functions. Childcare is a good example. Issues with who stays home to mind the children (usually the woman) or who pays for childcare (usually calculated to come out of the woman's salary when she goes back to work) or who gets welfare (usually single mothers, not fathers) all become largely women's issues. As such, they are deemed social problems, but not that serious to society. Yet, this is a problem affecting at least a full half of the population to some extent! So why isn't it a more important issue? And one of the reasons is because we're taught to look at women's issues as less important than the "manly" issues politics tends to be concerned with.
Anyhoo. The marriage thing came up because they were going the opposite extreme and saying that a woman should [i]never[/i] take her husband's name, as if it were some sign of subservience. I think a woman can choose what to do in that regard, and often does for symbollic reasons.
I changed my name when I got married because I looked at it as symbollically allying myself with a different family. Lord knows I was fairly tired of being associated with the one I'd come from, and all the good people in it had pretty much died. I saw it as a way of integrating into another clan, of a sort. I felt in a lot of ways like I'd lost all the family I had. And changing my name was a way of gaining a new family that I very much wanted to belong to.
Plus it allowed me to associate the wreaking of havoc with two names now! Ha ha! :D
You know, if you turn comment moderation on, you can save yourself having to be the host for whatever the hell that long ass pile right before me is saying. I didn't bother to read that one.
I love the word "cunt," but I also don't reserve it for women. Anyone can be/act like a cunt, though considering its historical usage, I can understand that some may not see it as I do. Maybe it's just me being a cunt and justifying something I don't care to stop doing.
I might lean toward Hillary and vote for her solely because she's a woman, assuming we don't have better candidate when the time comes around. At some point, we are going to have a woman as president, and at some point we are going to have a non white person as president. I would vote for Barak Obama because he's not white assuming again there isn't a better candidate.
Personally, I would cast these votes based on race and/or gender because I feel it's past time to prod this country a little bit in a better direction so that the next woman/non white candidate runs for election, the issue will have been dealt with and we can, hopefully, find a little honesty.
We don't remember Jackie Robinson as being a great player, and I honestly couldn't give a shit (not a baseball fan.) We remember him as being the first black player in what had been previously a league that was closed to black players. We think of him as having opened the door. Maybe Hillary would suck hard as president, but if it takes her to open the door, is it worth a vote?
Hey, Anonymous, how big is your tin-foil hat?
Well, I am glad you had told me this Contemplator. I am grateful that most feminists are in favor of strictly equal rights, and salute them. Perhaps you could tell me in an e-mail (if you feel like) what two last names you have had.
Feminists have the same problem as any other group working toward some form of social reform: the loud ones get all the attention.
The problem is that the loud ones are often not the best representatives. The "feminists" who go on TV and proclaim that all farm silos need to go because they are phallic symbols of male oppression may get a lot of attention, but they give reasonable (hell even the "flaming") feminists a bad name.
It's gotten to the point where "feminist" has become a bad word. No one wants to be identified as one. I forget where I saw this quote (probably on your blog), but someone said, "If by feminist you mean that I differentiate myself from a door mat, then yes, I'm a feminist." The popular conception of a feminist is the sweaty, hairy, deep-throated lesbian who desires global domination. As sexy as that is, I'm not sure it's the best representative.
The term scares people away. If feminism is the belief that women should be equal to men, then I think a lot of people support the idea. I certainly do. But the notion of being labeled a male "feminist" would shatter my already dubious self esteem.
Perhaps we need to parse this word. :)
If you want to post racist garbage and nonsensical drivel, do it somewhere else. It gets trashed otherwise.
And, in fairness to me, sam, this is the first time that has happened--I have word verification, which is supposed to cut out the spam. But it sort of reminded me of this fundy troll I know who calls himself BigChrisFilm.
I would vote for Hillary if the other person doesn't seem better to me. I may vote for her anyway just because I'd like to see a woman in the White House and it does open up doors. Unfortunately, if she does suck hard, that'll make it twice as difficult on the woman running after her, as the mentality in this country would probably run something like "Well, we had a woman in the White House and look what happened! Tried that. Back to what we know "works"."
JP--think about that stereotype. Now how many of those types of people have you honestly ever met in your life...or even laid eyes on? It's the perpetuation of the stereotype that causes people to choose not to identify as feminist. I don't think anyone can honestly point to an example in print and particularly in person where they've met a feminist who was a raging deep throated hairy lesbian who expressly stated she wanted to run men into the ground.
It's a popular cultural fear with no backing. No different, really, than the white Southerner's fear that if you didn't control blacks, they'd rise up and enslave whites.
Have you ever watched the movie "PCU"?
Exactly my point. The stereotype turns people away. They misunderstand what it's all about.
The physical description was admittedly a joke on my part, but the discussion of the phallic farm silos was legitimate. I read about that many a year ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home