Feminism as "let's be nice to everyone"

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

I've started getting the rage with celebrities and women I know who like to virtue signal about the importance of feminism, but then make the definition of feminism so broad that's it's useless.

Some things I've seen lately that have made my teeth clench include "feminism works for all genders", "feminism is another word for equalism", "we can only make feminism work if we get men on side, so let's be nice to them" "here's a list of things feminism works on for men" etc etc.

One thing that REALLY pissed me off was Emma-Feminist-Watson (I know...) saying that boys not being able to cry was the "saddest thing" she could think of and it just really brought home to me how feminism has turned from this fight to liberate woman, to this platitude designed to show that you're nice but "don't worry, not in a threatening way". Seriously, you can't think of a single thing SADDER than a bloke being emotionally stunted?

How did it happen that mainstream feminism started focusing on the emotional needs of men, rather than the increasing rates of DV and sexual violence? How did the conversation shift from "we need to fund these shelters for women" to "we need to make sure men have refuges [that never get used]"?

MrsTerryPratchett

Great post. That is exactly the right distinction.

Being nice gets you things like:

Let off 5p in a shop

It's not how a single political system or sociological structure has been changed.

Women didn't get the vote by pandering to men's egos.
India didn't win Independence by giving out free hugs.
The Civil Rights movement in the USA didn't get as far as it has by wearing T-shirts and badges.

I might well catch more flies with honey, but I don't want flies, I want change.

I know fuck all about the politics of feminism, so I just googled intersectional feminism and read an article from the telegraph. It makes sense to me to recognise that some people are more affected than others, that women who are disabled, black etc maybe have more than one form of discrimination going on against them. Also that those same women might be priviliged in other ways (wealth or education for ex) that might cushion them from the worst effects of sexism. But where that article caused problems for me was in the inclusion of those who are not actually women.
There are many issues where all women are affected, like abortion rights. I honestly don't see how inclusion of trans women is at all relevant or helpful.

This article is also good: www.feministcurrent.com/2017/03/20/third-waves-tokenization-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-anything-intersectional/

"Intersectionality" is a word that's been abused by the genderists so often I now am somewhat allergic to it.

Xenophile

Women didn't get the vote by pandering to men's egos.
India didn't win Independence by giving out free hugs.
The Civil Rights movement in the USA didn't get as far as it has by wearing T-shirts and badges

Interesting. Both political movements you mention were committed to non violence and working with and within the oppressing regime. Who was more successful in gaining political change MLK Jr or Malcolm X?

Yes, MrsTerry's examples are good. In its original meaning, intersectionality drew attention to the important consideration that it was possible to be oppressed for several different reasons at the same time - to be the victim of sexism, racism and poverty, simultaneously for example. And that for a given individual, racism might be a more pressing concern in their life than sexism.

But it has come instead to be used as a sort of silencing tactic - a tool for "whataboutery" absolutely nails it.

Both political movements you mention were committed to non violence and working with and within the oppressing regime. Who was more successful in gaining political change MLK Jr or Malcolm X?

I have seen it argued (fairly persuasively) that Malcolm X was invaluable in shifting the Overton window - by getting people to look at the extreme end of the argument, he enabled the aims of MLK to be seen as the mainstream, reasonable demands that they were. (Or put it another way, to invert Clausewitz's famous doctrine, "nothing gets people focused on a diplomatic solution like the threat of all-out war.")

With regards to the suffragettes I think both were needed - peaceful protest and reasoned argument and bricks through windows, women chaining themselves to railings, women on hunger strike.

Both political movements you mention were committed to non violence and working with and within the oppressing regime. Who was more successful in gaining political change MLK Jr or Malcolm X?

As Prickly has said, without Malcolm X, MLK jr would probably not have got where he did. Without the threat of violent uprising, Ghandi wouldn't either.

I feel you don't have a good handle on exactly what forms the non-violence took in both movements if you're suggesting that they worked with/within the system or comparing either with badges, hugs and T-shirts.

As an example, the Greenham Common peace camp is an example of peaceful protest based on the same principles. Many of those women were repeatedly beaten, raped and arrested simply because they were there. No t-shirts. No hugs. No badges. No comparison.

I have seen it argued (fairly persuasively) that Malcolm X was invaluable in shifting the Overton window

This.

Besides, nonviolent isn't the same as "nice".

Men screech oppression and violence when women just walk away from them and withdraw unpaid labour.

Nonviolent activism can be effective, but, that that's the thing, you absolutely will be accused of not being "nice" if you do anything that's effective, or has a change of being effective.

Xenophile
As Prickly has said, without Malcolm X, MLK jr would probably not have got where he did. Without the threat of violent uprising, Ghandi wouldn't either

Ghandi was vehemently opposed to any form of violence and went on hunger strike to stop his own side from threatening violence. MLK Jr achived many of his political aims - Civil Rights Act 1964 - before the Black Power movement. However, by the time of his assassination MLK Jr had realised political change was not enough.

I feel you don't have a good handle on exactly what forms the non-violence took in both movements if you're suggesting that they worked with/within the system or comparing either with badges, hugs and T-shirts

Take a look at the text of the "I have a dream speech" MLK quotes the Constitution and patriotic hymns, his frame of reference is very much within the political mainstream.

The violence was enacted by the political oppressors but was expected and used by the liberation movements that is what I meant by within the system.

Unless you are suggesting revolution - an idea that I ideologically quite like - then political change, in the mainstream, involves hearts and minds and practical applications.

Feminism by itself seems to lack a practical way of expressing itself. I am an active Trade Unionist. I work with people and make practical changes and improvements to peoples working conditions. By working together we do things but active members need to remember we are the vanguard and bring other members along with us.

Some rad fem comments (not all, not everyone, not all the time) alienate the very people who need to be radicalised and aware. Wrapped in a cloak of political purity they are right and others who are not as pure and not as 'right' are despised.

Feminism needs a radical wing of course it does, but it also needs a mainstream that is more easily accessible.

How many of these women calling themselves feminist have done even the slightest thing to support actual women?

I'm a liberal feminist and I have done and continue to many things to support actual women. As do many other liberal feminists I know. The ones who work for WA, the ones who deliver programmes such as Sure Start, Assertiveness and health programmes and the ones who work for a pittance in collecting information for women's research and development agencies.

You've completely missed my point Mouse, I'm hoping not deliberately, because I find that deeply tiring.

I don't think feminists do advocate violence though, do they?

Unless you include simply speaking as literal violence.

Unless you include simply speaking as literal violence.

Doing that seems to be rather fashionable.

Must be desperation; they cannot find any actual violence to accuse feminists of.

'Literal violence' just makes me think people don't know what either 'literal' or 'violence' means.

Xenophile

Clearly my historical clarification is not up to your analytical standards. Your point was that I did not:

"have a good handle on exactly what forms the non-violence took in both movements if you're suggesting that they worked with/within the system"

I clarified that both movements did work with and within the system.

Perhaps you were making the point that Malcolm X widened the political debate in regards to the Black Power movement - he did - but he did not class himself as part of the Civil Rights (your term) movement.

Were you suggesting that violent protest is needed for any real political change? A Bolshevik analysis?

I hope I am not being too 'tiring' if I ask you to clarify?

The wording of the OP is very unfair on Emma Watson. She is a feminist and the campaign she has promoted highlighted the most important global women's issues.

I agree with you Jasmine, the wording is unfair to a young woman who promotes feminism and has the ear of other young women. And has faced a lot of criticism and disgusting abuse for doing so.

The most effective weapon of the oppressor is "divide and conquer". On this thread EW's activism is reduced to "virtue signalling" and other feminists are described as "poison" and accused of being liberal feminists because they want to get laid! Even in the less robust posts, their positive contribution to the lives of women has been questioned. Feminism is divided sufficiently to not even be something to worry about. Internet nutters do the intimidation. Other feminists do the arguing. The status quo continues without taking much notice.

DioneTheDiabolist

accused of being liberal feminists because they want to get laid

Yes to this ^ women accusing other women of the two biggest offences a women can commit 1) having a political opinion someone else disagrees with 2) liking sex and getting yourself some.

We don't have to be nice to each other but we really don't need to use misogynistic attacks.

we can only make feminism work if we get men on side, i haven't read the full thread yet and op, I don't agree with you on this. I do think the change in men's mindset is important. Women can change and fight for things but if men are not and doing things to change their behaviour and belief then what's the point. We will just go round in circles.

The crying comment is more in line with social conditioning patriarchal does to men. When the fall out happens and they break down, the most likely person to be at the brant of it will be women and children. Men not showing their emotions is a problem in general. They are not seen as caring and not good enough to look after children and the elderly. I don't think the crying in itself is the problem but everything around it is because it's made to be part of masculinity.

I do agree that men have to be on board. I do agree that we have to bring up sons and daughters who are feminist.

And if you are a radical feminist then you would be fighting everything that patriarchy stands for. That's including men's behaviour. Dismantling the system takes men changing their behaviour and the way they view the world.

Patriarchy clearly doesn't harm men enough for men to want to change it, so I don't see why we should prioritize men. They have no need to change because they benefit more but their change is our again. When we get laws passed that benefit men, it usually will alter men's behaviour. Some are bigger than others. Other don't need laws to change and it can be easily ignored because we can't see the bigger picture.

Pointing out behaviours thats drives stereotypes is not being nice. It tackling the problem and the system. In the bigger scale of things it's not about helping them and being nice.

As I have always said, labour hasn't had a female leader because of misogyny and the majority of its followers belief.

intersectionality as understood by libfems centres men, so that obviously harms black women. It harms all women, but black women, as the most vulnerable group, will probably be hit first.
*
It may have been coined by a black woman a long time ago, but it is not about black women anymore.

Feminism should be about all women. Which includes black women. No need for intersectionality. If something white women want harms black women (such as, oh, for example legalizing prostitution), then chances are it will harm white women, too, they just don't see it right now.* This comes across like like one of those people who will say "all lives matter" vs "black lives matter".

Intersectionality for black women does matter. If other people have taken it to include them, it does not take the fact and reason away from why it was coined. The fact of the matter is still the same as it was before.

This comes across like like one of those people who will say "all lives matter" vs "black lives matter". To add to this, the fa t that "blue lives matter is a thing does not make "black lives matter irrelevant. It's in the same line and understanding as intersectionality. It does not black women's lives irrelevant because other people want to jump on bandwagon.

Interesting thread.
I agree with intersectional its as a concept and have learnt a lot from the BAME posters on here.
But in intersectional feminist groups it seems to be used as a way to beat up women because they aren't good enough - they have said something problematic, they are too white, too educated, too rich, too thin, too young, too old, to middle class, too straight to be a role model in anyway.
Fuck that. I hate how Theresa May has executed her role as Prime Minister but I'm bloody pleased we have a woman pm. Diane Abbott went to Cambridge but I'm still in awe of what she's achieved as a black woman.

Meanwhile trombones like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, and Ched Evans get all the passes because they have a penis.

Fuck that.

You don't have to say anything rude to men or be aggressive to be accused of it anyway. Especially on social media. Just this week I was told -it's feminists like you that put men off. Also been called a reef as a way of shutting me up. And the what about the menz happens every single time I talk about domestic violence. I'm not being rude or aggressive, I just happen to be a woman with an opinion. So no I don't care about the menz right now, as a feminist just said on twitter you have to attach your own oxygen mask before helping anyone else.