Feminist women wanted for PhD research.

What a fascinating thread.. it has taken a few twists and turns. It has made me think about the various tenents of feminism, and how our different experiences (be it race, sexuality, class) - hooks us into different elements, or how different types of femnism (liberal, cultural, radical, queer) make sense or even intersects differently to different pople.

I know I that my actions, values, motivations are very informed by radical feminist thinking, but I am not a radical feminist- and I am not entirely sure I fit the description of a liberal feminist either.

Alot of what Sebastienne has to say about gender and just how much of us and our personality is being socially constructed, resonates with me very strongly, but I could struggle with the use of Burlesque and feminism.

I have to work out why, because re-claiming female sexuality and the subversion of sexual stereotyps is to me an important part of feminism (by this I do not mean stripping in a lap dancing club is liberating).

Sorry, rambly but this thread is making me muse a little.

I'm loving the idea of subverting sexual stereotypes and becoming empowerful and fun! I already have the wheelchair. Can someone lend me a corset to go with it? High heels are fine seeing as I can't walk anyway.

< whooooosh >

straight over my head....

'Gender' as the binary distinction between "men" and "women" is absolutely a social construct (but we live in a world which hugely privileges the choice to ascribe to one or the other, a million times more if the one we choose happens to be the one we were assigned at birth). Masculinity/femininity is a similarly problematic construct, privileging the masculine over the feminine regardless of the perceived gender of the actor -- unless someone gendered "woman" is "too masculine", of course. That's all part of the patriarchy as far as I'm concerned.

But gender as lived experience? I only have my own lived experience to go on, and it's not enough. As an adult woman, it is hard for me to distinguish what is "authentically me" and what is internalised societal bullshit about what someone of my perceived gender/age/weight/sexuality/interests should be. A huge chunk of my personality is socially constructed, and of course some of that will come under the heading of "gender". An important part of the raising of feminist consciousness, for me, is trying to sift out the authentic me from the socially-imposed bullshit.

So I know that society's ideas of "what it is to be a woman" are constructed through patriarchy to keep us oppressed. But in a world without patriarchy, would gender cease to exist? Not enough data. I can't know for sure.

I would like to reply but have some stuff to do now. Will come back later.

We are agreed that Twisty's blog is very good. I suspect that she would give the whole burlesque/radical feminism thing a right good pounding if she got her hands on you! Maybe you should ask her what she thinks (just be careful how you do it!).

Your posts are leaving me wondering - do you accept the radical feminist notion that gender is a social construct?

Thanks, @Beachcomber.

Do you think that the sting is taken out of it if we re-arrange our adjectives to describe ourselves as "radical queer feminists"? Because my identification of being generally, politically "radical" has probably informed how keen I've been to identify as a "radical feminist". Although I generally find myself in agreement with bloggers who call themselves radical feminists as well, except on trans and BDSM issues [which are so off-topic for this thread, and I don't want to discuss them]. And certainly my understanding was that there was enough disagreement within radical feminism about those issues that diverging from the orthodoxy didn't disqualify me.

But if the particular understanding of gender that dittany lays out above is a core, unarguable tenet of radical feminism, then no, that's not what I am. It's a shame, because radical feminism certainly fits me better than any other label I've seen - Twisty Faster is the queen of everything - but I completely take your point about not wanting the message to be watered down.

I don't know where the line should be drawn between "healthy disagreement within a movement" and "unhelpful appropriation of the wrong label", but this has already been a topic of some discussion amongst Lashers, and I imagine that after today's thread it's going to be the topic of a lot more!

Well you certainly seem like an interesting bunch. I don't agree with you with regards to burlesque/radical feminism (or gender) but I can see what you are trying to do.

I think it is great to see young women (and men) taking an interest in feminism. If I can act like an old gimmer for a moment, might I kindly say that radical feminist theory is not really open to individual interpretation or representation. Radical feminist theory just is. One can disagree with it or reject it or criticise it of course. However it remains a set of political values, analysis and ideas that radical feminists have developed by analysing male supremacy and female oppression as they exist in the real world. If one agrees with the analysis and thinks it is correct then one is a radical feminist. If one disagrees one is not a radical feminist. What radical feminists resist is the risk of radical feminism being watered down by people putting their own spin on it.

I see things on your website that to me are contrary to radical feminism.

I'm only saying this because I think you are serious and sincere. No doubt your show is well thought out and interesting - I'm just picking up on the radical feminism thing because I think it is vital for feminists to be consistent and uncompromising (and also really think hard about things in order to make sure their patriarchy shit detector is engaged at all times!).

Good luck to you though - I'm sure you are all a well read bunch but do keep reading feminist theory and exchanging with other feminists. Again this is old gimmery, but one's perspective does change as one gets older, and the patriarchy closes in on one (often when one becomes a mother).

Dittany: I'd suggest that, rather than misunderstanding gender, we simply interpret it differently to how you do. I believe that gender is just a function of human diversity - I don't feel that any type of diversity necessarily implies hierarchy. I agree that patriarchy abuses gender through its constructed hierarchy (and I'd say that, more broadly, it is one of many aspects of diversity used within kyriarchy to maintain a complex system of privilege and oppression). I recognize that you're likely to disagree, but I don't believe you're fair to label our alternative viewpoint as "misunderstanding".

Thanks for clarifying that, dittany. To me, patriarchy is everything that creates and maintains a sexual hierarchy (or rather, a hierarchy built on a dichotomous understanding of 'the two sexes' that isn't borne out by the real world).

Doesn't the potential existence of a multiplicity of genders threaten such a 'sexual hierarchy' just as much as the potential abolition of gender does? Admittedly, a hierarchy could still exist between any number of genders, but at least people wouldn't be able to fall back on "it's just biology / human nature!" to justify their bigotry. And a world with genders that are universally chosen rather than assigned would be rather different as well, with gender more akin to an optional subcultural affiliation, a way of understanding oneself and aligning oneself with similar people. Essentially, isn't the creation of a multiplicity of genders one possible route to a world without gender (=where gender has ceased to matter)?

@Beachcomber:
I think reclaiming does work in some contexts - eg I know some women who've taken the sting out of street harrassment by reclamation: "yeah, I'm a fat dyke and proud, what's your point?" - but I know it can be problematic too. For example, I love the word "queer" to describe myself, but know that in some contexts (especially when I'm interacting with older members of the LGBT community) it can be a reminder of hatespeech.

With 'reclaiming burlesque', though, I'd think we're only doing the same thing as people who are 'reclaiming gay' by fighting the use of 'that's so gay!' as a derogatory phrase. It's not quite the same as reclaiming something that started out as a slur - it had a meaning before "stripping in a corset", and we like that meaning.

@dittany:
What you call "gender", I would call "patriarchy". Rethinking gender, to my mind, is about diminishing the power of patriarchy by exposing its double standards with regard to how it treats the people it genders "female" and the people it genders "male". We mostly do this through comedy, exposing the absurdity of patriarchal ideas. Perhaps the utopia I imagine at the end of this is one where gender ceases to exist, and we're all just people.. perhaps not, though, I don't spend much time on utopian thinking when I can be out smashing the patriarchy.

OK Lashing's folks. I had a lightbulb moment earlier anyway and the phrase 'it's just marketing with a bit of reclaiming' popped into me head.

I have trouble with the notion of reclaiming - one because I think it doesn't work and two I think it tramples over those who have been harmed by a practice/slur/word in the past.

Don't worry about the pile-on. You are very welcome to MN.

I still don't think burlesque can be described as radical feminism however.

Oops, accidental Lashings of Ginger Beer pile-on.. Carly, I'm very sorry for hijacking your post, and good luck with your study!

I'm too old to take part in your research, Carly, but it sounds interesting.

Good luck with it.

@Beachcomber:
We chose 'burlesque', at least in part, because we want to pull in the audience of women who've read in cosmo that 'burlesque is empowering', and give them something better than "stripping out of vintage clothes". And also because 'burlesque' does describe what we do better than satire - the 'variety show' nature of our songs and sketches, the fact that gender and sexuality are at the core of our themes, the way we expose absurdity in patriarchal attitudes by turning things "up to 11".

@dittany
To me, this is what it means to be a Radical Feminist:

Recognising and fighting patriarchy wherever I find it (and it's bloody everywhere), believing that nothing short of a revolution in how we construct and think about gender is going to end the systematic oppression of women.

And Lashings of Ginger Beer is one of the tools that I use to work towards this.

One of our acts is set to a song by the Indelicates, called "Our Daughters Will Never Be Free", which explicitly deals with the failures of third wave feminism to deal with the complexities of issues around packaged-and-sold "empowerment", and why that is selling out the women of the future. Another song, called "Eyes of Men", talks about the problems of being a woman-who-fancies-women, when the only cultural contexts we are given for finding women attractive are those of male objectification.

(Another Lashings of Ginger Beer performer here)

Dittany: Personally, I prefer to describe Lashings as a "Radical Queer Feminist Burlesque Collective", separating the 'Radical' label from the 'Feminist' label to help avoid assumptions about what branches of feminism we align ourselves with. Our definitions are explained on our blog info page, further clarifying our position:

lashingsofgb.blogspot.com/p/about-lashings-of-ginger-beer.html

As far as I understand it, the group's decision to use the "Burlesque" label was an attempt to reclaim the term and to help draw it in a direction that we consider to be closer to its historical roots than the striptease-heavy shows we mostly think of today. For my part, I've never performed in a corset, or in (or out of) clothing that I would consider inviting of objectification. All of the items in our setlists tackle issues within feminism and/or queer activism. If you're currently unable to watch the videos on our main site right now, some of the appraisals our work has received may help to clarify our perspectives:

lashings.org/reviews.html

Dittany, do you agree with Beachcomber's description of your view that "radical feminism is a definite and historical concept within which either one's actions fall or they do not."

So when, on this thread and others, you describe an activity or an attitude as being not feminist/unfeminist, you are thinking about radical feminism with clear delineations.

Fair enough, I'd've thought. Is it then that you don't believe that there are other types of feminisms, or that there shouldn't be, which are prepared to encompass other views/activities?

Not trying to pick a fight with you, BTW. Happy to on many other threads, but this is a genuine question.

BTW my 'laughing at oppression' comment was not aimed at you or about your show. I was speaking in general.