To ask if you feel feminism doesn't include you?

[FlyingElbows]

I was brought up by a mother who, like so many others, found feminism in the late 70s / early 80s. She spent most of my life telling me that I could do anything but I was essentially too stupid to form my own thoughts and opinions and needed "feminists" to think for me. Throughout my adult life I have met women who proclaim to be "feminist" but hold what I have found to be questionable views about who "feminism" should be open to. So, do you feel feminism wants you or are you too stupid, too lacking in academic prowess, too working class, too blonde, too keen on glittery things, too married, too a sahm, too anything at all to be good enough? Just wondering because I have had enough of other women telling me what to think and I'm wondering if it's just me?

Livia Chances are high that someone you know, possibly someone you are close to, has been a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

Yes - my mother was a victim of DV and I was raped at 15 when I was still a virgin.

I obviously didn't explain myself well (tbf its 2.35 in the morning).

If something happens to me or someone I care about then of course it bothers me that it has happened to me or to them.

I didn't report my rape (my parents don't even know, 30 years on).

So yes I have had experience of both.

I'm sorry you had those experiences Livia.

I'm sorry, too, Livia and also sorry that I missed your earlier post about that.

Violence against women is the core issue for me as a feminist and has been for a very long time, and I believe that such progress that we have made so far is mainly the result of feminist activism on these issues.

Seneca I don't need to be told that these things go on (in fact I mentioned it upthread a few hours ago), nor do I need to have the impact of them pointed out - I have been living with one all my life and the other for 30 years.

Seneca Cross post.

whatdo Thank you.

Livia, I am also really sorry about what happened to you and should have said this last night. I can understand how you feel that you only care about those closest to you.

I am pretty sure Livia spoke of her experiences quote early on.

This is an interesting thread.

Tbh I can't see how it matters if someone doesn't want the label of feminism, because of their experiences. Surely we have the right to reject any label put on us?

It's not like they are campaigning for inequality.

I wish it were less of a label, for me feminism is a fight for gender equality, akin to battling for racial equality (and who wouldn't want to affiliate with that?) it is such a shame that it has become a 'thing', a doctrine and marginalised somewhat to academic tomes and the iterations of first wave feminist such as Greer. I can understand why people feel alienated but it is up to us to make it what we want.

Livia feminists are fighting so that in the future what happened to you doesn't happen again, either to you or another 15 year old girl. I honestly don't understand how you can not care about that.

To all those people going about their lives, not caring about anything which doesn't directly affect them, you do realise that you can only do this because of the achievements of the feminists who came before us?

Livia, sorry for your experiences.

I'd've thought that anyone involved with any kind of political or social movement (disability rights, welfare reform etc) would find it a little frustrating to converse with someone who found their focus issues unimportant. Is there something that made you think feminists were particularly aggressive?

About the labelling. It's not like feminism is a discrete identity. It really is such a broad church that it can mean polar opposite things to different people. I am a feminist - I have written on gender issues amongst other things - but I don't post on the feminist boards here because many of the posters on there have a view of feminism with which I disagree. And that's OK. It doesn't mean they aren't feminists or that I'm not a feminist - we are just different kinds of feminist! Rosa Luxemburg, Margaret Thatcher, Marilyn Monroe, Marie Curie, Jane Austen, Judith Butler are all different kinds of feminist icons - because the act of being a woman, in a position of voice, talent and power, is still inherently political. Personally, I like the legacy of Luxemburg and dislike that of Thatcher, but that's about wider politics. And again, others will feel the opposite way. I would like to see feminism spoken about in the plural as a range of discrete positions, in tension with one another in all kinds of ideological and logical ways, yet inhabitable by many kinds of women.

And that's why it seems strange to me that any person (and yes, I am including men) would reject the label - because it's really so malleable and general as to be a kind of flexible container for all sorts of meanings. (Let's be clear: I'm not saying women can't reject it, just that I don't understand why they would do so, maybe someone can explain!). Yet despite that, I still think it's useful as a way of identifying yourself as someone who thinks that women have an equal right to some or all of the following basic things - education, political power and voting, subjectivity, job opportunities, sexual freedom, legal personhood, freedom from rape and violence. It's interesting to me that there's resistance on here to this definition of feminism in terms of these basics because they are perceived as something with which one couldn't disagree... yet the granting of these most fundamental of rights to women is very, very recent in Western Europe (where there's still plenty of work to do). Women over 21 didn't get the vote in the UK until 1928 - that's less than 100 years ago! It's still just about within living memory! And history isn't progressive- we can go backwards, things can get worse, rights can be taken away. Add to that the fact that there are millions upon millions of women across the world who still don't have these basic rights, and I think the idea that somehow we're 'past' the moment of arguing for the basics and that feminism now 'means something different' seems a bit premature.

DrSeuss Plenty of people last night said about people being aggressive.

But if someone truly doesn't care about your issues, then you can quote them back to

themselves and be genuinely surprised at the fact they feel that way but when one person feel so passionately about something that the other doesn't care about (as opposed to having the opposite opinion), it becomes a totally pointless conversation.

"DrSeuss Plenty of people last night said about people being aggressive."

But was anyone actually aggressive?

Livia- can I ask what you hoped to gain from joining in this thread, and why you have stayed so long? Obviously you can stay as long as you like, but I don't understand why you would when for your own very personal reasons you have no interest in the subject?

That probably was slightly garbled (I have had two hours sleep, in my defence) but you seem to have singled me out to ask.

I have seen the thread in feminism about this thread - I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way so perhaps you should ask the other posters as well because I'm hiding this thread now.

Bertrand I didn't hope to gain anything - I continued to post as I was being asked questions.

I think that accusing Livia of ingratitude towards feminists because they are fighting to work towards the end of sexual violence is awful.

I know people who work in this area and some of them don't consider themselves to be feminists. They are working hard to keep women safe though. I don't think that the label really matters. It only seems to matter during online debate.

BertrandRussell
The question I really want an answer to is this. Do people ever completely reject any OTHER ideology, movement, group, club, party, whatever if one person in it says something they don't like?

Yes. Some feminists (including some who were previously supportive) seem to reject transgender rights at least partly on the basis of what a vocal minority might have to say.

On the feminist label front - not sure why people should be expected to declare themselves anything, regardless of overlap of beliefs with any ideology. (Surely feminism is all about rejecting being defined by unwanted labels, stereotypes etc?)

Have read through the whole thread and these points stand out

Lots of people saying they feel they can't identify with feminism as they are SAHM. Of course you can be a feminist and a SAHM. Of course it is your choice BUT what makes it a feminist issue is that you are much more likely to make that choice as a woman than as a man. If being a SAHP was equally open to men and being main breadwinner was equally open to women that would be a true victory for feminism. I feel that the ability to share parental leave is a big step forward for that reason.

In a much less important way deciding to shave your legs, let your daughter play with Barbies or take your husbands name on marriage (all of which I have done in a fairly unexplained way) are similar. They are your own individual choices that you can make for your own reasons but your choice is influenced by the patriarchal society we live in. Whether you acknowledge it or not part of your decision will be driven by what's expected of you as a woman.

Having an awareness of the influences that drive our choices and the consequent unfairness to women is what feminism has done for me. I still make 'un feminist' choices quite a lot because it's tiring going against the grain all the time and I won't do it for stuff I don't find important but I am aware at least that I am doing it. So I am a feminist.

I care about equal opportunities at work and at home, violence against women and rape culture and yes, I do care about transgender issues. I am less bothered about pink and gendered toys. You don't have to agree on every issue to be a feminist.

fascicle said "On the feminist label front - not sure why people should be expected to declare themselves anything, regardless of overlap of beliefs with any ideology. (Surely feminism is all about rejecting being defined by unwanted labels, stereotypes etc?)"

I absolutely agree about declaration (I can't think of many contexts where I would say 'Hello, I'm shove and I'm a feminist'). What interests me are these statements that use the label to provide a reverse definition. 'I'm not a feminist but...' or 'I hate feminism because it's so condescending'. Those kinds of statement, at least it seems to me, draw down on the currency of that label just as much as a positive definition would.

Also, just in terms of general language, we can't really do without labels can we? Imagine managing without any nouns?! Of course, the idea that one can reduce an entire, rich personal identity to a series of terms is ridiculous. But they can be helpful shorthand. When I say 'I personally dislike transphobic feminism and regard it as discriminatory', you know what I mean - though I'm not capturing anything like the entire personal identity of the individuals who espouse such views in a statement like that, and there may be many other points of politics, ideology or general taste on which we would gladly agree.

It seemed to me that originally the OP was identifying an entire, diverse movement with a few individuals who have employed feminism as a weapon against her. I can totally understand how having a mother who belittled and bullied you, using feminism in this emotionally violent way, would put you off it. (We're not all like that though, OP. Honest!). The more I think about it, though, the more I wonder if she's nailing something really important here: that you can't impose equality coercively, with emotional or actual violence at a personal level - and, on a larger scale, the feminism of one part of the world perhaps shouldn't be imposed on another culture down the barrel of a gun, or vended with a Coke as part of neoliberal economic landgrab, or wrapped up in an austerity package. Absolutely, we need to do something about the flagrant abuses of women's rights across the world, but perhaps that work has to have a bottom-up element that comes from within those cultures? Because feminisms (plural) implies difference, non-universality at both an individual and a cultural level.

"Yes. Some feminists (including some who were previously supportive) seem to reject transgender rights at least partly on the basis of what a vocal minority might have to say."

Do they actually reject transgender rights as a whole, or do they reject the "demands" of the vocal minority you mention?

Or is that perhaps a debate for another thread?