Ok, I have an idea. Imagine I have come down from outer space. Explain who isn’t a feminist.

Ok, then what shouldn’t be included as feminist? Or what should be? I’ve seen everything from feminists for life to suicide girls(which resells pictures of the women without their permission) being touted as feminist, so I’m skeptical. Of course, I have a hard time feeling trust for the type of person who needs a lot of hand holding to say “hey, let’s fight for women’s rights’ because when the going gets tough, do I really want a bunch of ladies who are not in it to win it?

Seriously, do you just have a macro somewhere? Skeptical of what? Of me? Why did you bring the Suicide Girls up? Is this post about them? Do they volunteer?

I’ve got my own long list of stuff that isn’t feminist; I think you’ve got one, too. I suspect they’re not actually all that dissimilar. Mine includes pro-lifers along with many other things. I have commented frequently on things as either feminist or unfeminist on this very blog. Again, stop talking to me as though I’ve just said that there is no such thing as unfeminist.

as a former suicide girl, i can explain that one. it basically boils down to “dont always beleive what the media tells you”. they adopted the “feminism” label to basically get girls to take there clothes off. theres many articles on how there really not feminist at all, it was just a marketing ploy. if you look at there contract its pretty obvious (since basically they own you after you sign it, and even if you leave, they still own the name you used). if you did some research on it, there anti feminism would be obvious, and not even up for debate for whats feminist and what isnt

This happens pretty much any time anyone gets into an argument about what feminism might involve or what grounds on which feminists might criticize other feminists. And I can remember at least one or two occasions on which you have shown up here to raise the same red herring. I’m tired of it.

If I argue that “marriage” should not exclude partnerships between two men or two women, I am not arguing that it should include man-on-boxturtle action.

If I argue that “woman” should not exclude Sylvia Rivera, I am not arguing that it should include Chuck Norris.

If I argue that “high art” should not exclude Maus, I am not arguing that it should include Jack Chick tracts.

Along the same lines, if I argue that “feminist” should not exclude certain people or certain actions, I am not arguing that there is no such thing as “feminism” or that it is categorically improper to argue in favor of any boundaries around the concept at all.

For fuck’s sake. So stop, just stop, pretending that there’s no difference between the two. It’s an insult to me, the Lyon-Martins, Sylvia Rivera, Art Spiegelman, and Chuck Norris’ massive biceps. And it’s really fucking irritating.

Ok, then what shouldn’t be included as feminist? Or what should be? I’ve seen everything from feminists for life to suicide girls(which resells pictures of the women without their permission) being touted as feminist, so I’m skeptical. Of course, I have a hard time feeling trust for the type of person who needs a lot of hand holding to say “hey, let’s fight for women’s rights’ because when the going gets tough, do I really want a bunch of ladies who are not in it to win it?

I’m not saying any help or volunteering is poison; I know you can do real good. But charity can be the most damaging, destructive thing you do for a person, even if you’re taking on a good cause without concern for principals.

In the Philippines, I knew some excellent public health officials who did a lot of good work on providing accurate information and alternatives on birth control for poor women. I also heard (from knowledgable public health workers I personally trusted) of other people trying to promote birth control, population control, and better health among poor women. There were two distinct approaches.

The ones I’d describe as good worked from a principal of women’s autonomy, decision-making abilities, and control over their own bodies. They primarily provided information, ensuring that the women they worked with were fully informed of the risks and benifits of any and all birth control techniques. They also make it so the women knew where and how to get birth control, and what their rights were. They did some work arranging the availability of low-cost contraceptives, but on a limited basis. The main task was providing information and spreading a certain outlook towards women’s bodies and reproductive decisions.

These people would almost certainly not have described themselves as feminists, and hadn’t read much on the subject. So I consider that a count against ideological purity, but for the value of ideas.

The ones I would not describe as good were extremely pragmatic. They provided sterilizations for poor women, which was a cheap one-time procedure. They’d get the women’s consent, usually by sending someone to the village a couple days in advance, telling women that there were free sterilizations available, and that any women who wanted one should take advantage of the opportunity now, because they couldn’t promise to go back. Then they’d set up in the nearest hospital, or well-equipped clinic, and perform tubal ligations for whoever agreed to it. No information on the risks was distributed, no effort was made to talk about other methods of birth control, and women who hesitated were told it could be their only chance. No woman that I heard about was forced into this, but a lot regretted it afterwards.

As a more personal, less extreme example, I walk with crutches. I get a lot of people trying to help me. A few people try to help me agressively (NEVER grab someone with crutches going up or down stairs if they haven’t personally told you that it is helpful). And there’s an offended, entitled attitude when I refuse some of the more useless or damaging help. As if the fact that they’re trying to help means I owe it to them to be who they think I am and be helped how they say. If I hadn’t been kicking back against that continuously since childhood (and gotten good at it), I hate to think what I’d be trapped into by people deciding what I needed and how they could help me.

I don’t think much of ideals or ideoligies that don’t touch the real world. I don’t believe that a million people thinking good thoughts is going to stop war or patriarchy or anything if they never get up off their meditation chairs and act. But principals are important, and some principals are better than others. Especially when it comes to charity, where the person bestowing their generosity has a lot more choices about what to offer than the person taking charity has about what to accept.

But why does it bother you? Like, we’re supposed to volunteer making calls at the domestic violence place downtown, but some of the folks in my class are pro lifers (expressed). And there are plenty of other instances in which just volunteering, while nice and good for the country, may not mean you are an ideological feminist. My mom worked at habitat for humanity with me, but she’s the sort of person who says that annoying bs about girls being ‘fast’. Also, I’ve never gotten what you’ve been on about. I can’t find a nice way of asking why you care.

I’m interested in this for the same reason you’re interested in it, without the senseless part. The conversation over what feminism means is an important one.

(why do I care? Because if feminism has no boundaries, what does it mean? and how can I avoid getting lumped in with the ‘if you even look at birth control, you’re a stupid slut who’ll burn in hell ‘feminists’? )

This happens pretty much any time anyone gets into an argument about what feminism might involve or what grounds on which feminists might criticize other feminists. And I can remember at least one or two occasions on which you have shown up here to raise the same red herring. I’m tired of it.

If I argue that “marriage” should not exclude partnerships between two men or two women, I am not arguing that it should include man-on-boxturtle action.

If I argue that “woman” should not exclude Sylvia Rivera, I am not arguing that it should include Chuck Norris.

If I argue that “high art” should not exclude Maus, I am not arguing that it should include Jack Chick tracts.

Along the same lines, if I argue that “feminist” should not exclude certain people or certain actions, I am not arguing that there is no such thing as “feminism” or that it is categorically improper to argue in favor of any boundaries around the concept at all.

For fuck’s sake. So stop, just stop, pretending that there’s no difference between the two. It’s an insult to me, the Lyon-Martins, Sylvia Rivera, Art Spiegelman, and Chuck Norris’ massive biceps. And it’s really fucking irritating.

As a women who just left an abusive husband and is struggling to make it alone, I have a lot more respect for those who *actually do something* than for those who just *think* great things. It’s the volunteers who most inspire me at this particular point in my life. I’m sure I’m not alone in that feeling.

Do you suppose that even non-feminists can inspire more people to become feminists through their actions than ideologues can through their communications?

(why do I care? Because if feminism has no boundaries, what does it mean? and how can I avoid getting lumped in with the ‘if you even look at birth control, you’re a stupid slut who’ll burn in hell ‘feminists’? )