Author: has written 284 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

22 Responses

  1. On #femfuture | Speaker's Corner in the ATX (scATX)

    […] #3: Also, Caperton at Feministe and illegal plum pudding on […]

  2. A4
    A4 April 12, 2013 at 11:14 pm |

    I think the first step would be to edit the hell out of that report. It should be a lot more concise.

    It would be a little more transparent if the authors just came out and said “We all got together because we are trying to form an online feminism establishment that will link up to the current academic feminist establishment.”

    That doesn’t sound as good as “more radical, intentional, and transformative relationships between all the stakeholders in the feminist movement”

    You don’t need 3 flowery adjectives because 3 adjectives is what you use in your college paper when you’re trying to bullshit your professor.

    Online feminism is a very decentralized form of feminism compared to the feminism of the academic establishment. Now a bunch of notable figures from online feminist spaces have gotten together to centralize and form an establishment. If they know many groups they’d like to represent have reason to be wary of the feminist establishment, they should state clearly and unequivocally what they’re planning to do and why. They should talk in real world terms of concrete actions, because this big “blog feminism 101″ document is inaccessible.

    Look, if a bunch of online feminist writers want to come together for collective action then that is awesome. But if they want to inform the online feminist community of what their doing, they don’t need all this exposition:

    The feminist movement isn’t without its complicated
    history. Combating racism, homophobia, classism, and
    other forms of oppression within feminist communities
    is a decades-old struggle that is far from over. But
    the Internet has allowed for a more open space of
    accountability and learning, helping to push mainstream
    feminism to be less monolithic.

    We don’t need to be told these things. There is no reason to try to create an overarching narrative of online feminism and feed it to the online feminist community and there are so many reason not to. The people you are supporting have their own narratives already! That is what is intersectional about online feminism. Please don’t try to write a grand encompassing narrative. That is not constructive. If you want to respect other people experiences, then you need to be honest and make it easy for others to place you in their own narratives where they center different groups and identities and oppressions than you do. You should not try to present a universally applicable narrative and then cast yourselves as the heroes.

    It’s a big power grab. People will recognize that. This new self-selected establishment should be straightforward about how they’re trying to grab power and and what they plan to do with it.

    1. amblingalong
      amblingalong April 13, 2013 at 12:15 am |

      Yeah, I have no idea why even incredibly well-regarded humanities departments are so bad at teaching their students to write. Today there are thousands of brilliant sociology professors who are absolutely incapable of composing a halfway-decent paper; the fourth-grade take on what makes for good writing (that is, gratuitously using multisyllabic words with obscure definitions) has somehow caught on at the graduate level.

      The only upside is how easy this makes having utterly meaningless hoax papers accepted by reputable academic journals, which always ends in hilarity. If you haven’t read about “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” you really should. If you enjoy such things, you can also play my favorite party game whenever you meet someone with a PHD in “postmodern cultural studies” or some such, and see how long you can make stuff up before they catch on.

      1. amblingalong
        amblingalong April 13, 2013 at 12:32 am |

        Also: The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes.

        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 13, 2013 at 2:35 am |

          Calvin and Hobbes ftw.

          All those jokes were waaaay over my head as a 7-y-o; I reread the comic now and it is jaw-droppingly brilliant, especially the art-crit stuff.

      2. Willard
        Willard April 13, 2013 at 1:06 am |

        Every time I read it I need to sit in a corner and take deep breaths at the end the of the first paragraph.

        (so-called) scientific method

        And don’t get me started on the word salad.

      3. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune April 13, 2013 at 1:10 am |

        Yep. Honestly, 80% of my criteria for the merit of any given literary criticism paper is whether or not the opening paragraph can be summed up as “I can has big wurdz?”

      4. amblingalong
        amblingalong April 13, 2013 at 1:41 am |

        Wait, here’s an even better one (this time, not a hoax):


        “The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, [is due to] the association of fluidity with femininity… From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”

        Also from the author:

        “Is E=MC^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest.”

        1. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune April 13, 2013 at 2:05 am |

          not a hoax

          Well, you just broke my wife. I HOPE YOU’RE HAPPY.

      5. Willard
        Willard April 13, 2013 at 2:01 am |

        This is an amazing OTT for a Friday night!

        I never realized just how masculine water channels were or that my use of hot-wire anemometers to measure turbulence was fatally undercut by the failure to consider the feminine in the wind tunnel.

        There’s so much cart before horse in all this it makes my head spin. It reminds me of some heated arguments I’ve gotten in to over “compensation” in rocket design. Humans see ourselves everywhere we look in nature, narcissism and the accompanying anthropomorphism should be painfully obvious by now.

  3. A4
    A4 April 12, 2013 at 11:39 pm |

    Also the Jessica Marie Johnson article is awesome.

  4. Computer Soldier Porygon
    Computer Soldier Porygon April 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm |

    Caperton, I am so glad you started writing for Feministe. That’s all! VALUABLE INPUT~

  5. Kerandria
    Kerandria April 14, 2013 at 5:17 am |

    Started? I hope you realise that this isn’t Capterton’s first post..

    1. Kerandria
      Kerandria April 14, 2013 at 7:45 pm |

      *Caperton, even! I’m so sorry; that’s what I get for replying at work.

    2. Computer Soldier Porygon
      Computer Soldier Porygon April 15, 2013 at 8:56 am |

      Er, yeah? Not sure why you read my post that way. I was just reading this and thinking about how I generally really enjoy her posts and think she’s been a valuable addition and I wanted to say that.

  6. The Round-Up: April 16, 2013 | Gender Focus – A Canadian Feminist Blog

    […] Caperton at Feministe has also collected some valid critiques of the #femfuture report. […]

  7. hotpot
    hotpot April 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm |

    What a quintessentially feminist controversy. It comes back to the idea that you can’t do feminism unless it’s politically good from a bunch of other left-wing angles too (not inclusive enough! too corporate funded! too centralized! doesn’t address fat issues! disability! asexuality! non-US!)

    Bullshit. There’s a difference between saying that feminists should care about issues according to merit as human beings (that should go without saying) and that feminism should be tied down to every little issue until it can’t do anything. Intersectionality should mean that when a feminist activist (or prison activist, or civil rights activist, or union organizer) encounters something within their activism that happens to be uniquely significant due to some other axis, that is recognized and exploited. It should not be about, IMO, checking off the boxes, like checking off the Black History Month box just because it’s February. Nor should it be about holding yourself back until the last, most marginalized person or any axis is on board. Attack on all fronts at all times, the Foundation/Money front included.

    Good for them, I hope they get the funding they need from rich people.

  8. Media, Movement, and Money: Evolving #femfuture, @MediaEquity Creates #10Gazelle | Fem2pt0

    […] The future of #FemFuture By Caperton on April 12, 2013. […]

  9. #FemFuture Roundtable with Bitch Flicks Editors | Bitch Flicks

    […] Megan: …it leaves only 5 or 10 mins for feminism in the past 10 years and doesn’t even fucking talk about online feminism!!! This pissed off a shitload of people on Twitter because duh. We were written out of this documentary’s history of feminism. But now it feels like that’s exactly what’s happening here. Bitch Magazine has a compilation of people’s responses to FemFuture. And Feministe does too. […]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.