Alright Gloria about this white feminism, this is long overdue

Guys, Gloria Steinem, is the worst. There is a long sorted drama-filled history of her role in the women's movement. But at the end of the day, Gloria is a second wave, white feminist, and she believes all the things that go along with that. However, this weekend, we've reached peak WTF moment. What did she say? Well on Bill Maher, she announced women supporting Bernie are doing it because we're boy crazy:

“Women are more for [Hillary Clinton] than men are...First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience...Not to over-generalize, but...Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age; women get more radical because they lose power as they age.And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie...”

My lesbian friends have a lot to say about this. Mostly, *squinty eyes* come again? Look, I don't have the figures of the demographic breakdown. I suspect slightly more men support Bernie; I also suspect that number increases slightly among young men. But I don't decide who I'm voting for based on where the boys are. Hell, if some of these supporters aren't trying to drive women away in droves. 

This is offensive on so many levels. Young women are so easily swayed by men, Gloria? Really? And Maher is right if a man said this NOW would be all over their shit. This kind of comment is so demeaning to young women and supporters of Bernie. It is also indicative of a huge split in the women's movement and in feminism as we know it. Gloria and Hillary don't represent the kind of feminism I believe in. I respect their ability to self-identify as feminists, but that is a narrow and limited version of feminism that helps only a few.

Socialism is for everybody?

[Housekeeping: I know the tweets didn’t embed properly from the last post, but I tried several times to fix it, and I have zero fucks to give if it isn’t pretty. The quote took Bernie out of context, but that is the point isn’t? This is what people hear when he’s speaking? Maybe that should be addressed at some point?]

 A friend emailed me last week about my recent post, and I’m still thinking through things in that. But he asked what I thought about this reading group I attended on Women and Socialism by Sharon Smith, and I have a lot of thoughts.

Some of this is straight up me. I’ve been the only feminist in the room, but usually that is when I’m with a lot of people who are unaware of social justice. I’m often the only or most socialist person in the room, but that is because more often than not I’m in a room full of feminists. The other big part of this being my issue is I didn’t like the book. It was bad feminist scholarship, but this is because it is Marxist scholarship. The consensus in the room seemed to be the book was arguing all women should be socialists. I’m not 100% sure on that. I don’t think it was saying socialism is for everyone. What I think is a strange way this book was pushing bell hooks’ argument feminism is for everybody.

You ever been in a room with people who are really proud of themselves for asking the important questions, but can’t get past their framework to understand the answers? That is what this book was. The book wanted to talk about the women movement/feminism and socialism, but instead of conducting a thorough research project on Marxist Feminist theory, we got a history of feminism with a Marxist interpretation.

Then there was the discussion, and I remembered why I had problems with Marxist scholarship. Immediately, someone started critiquing, arguing the text so much in the book was based on as a lesser Marx/Engel’s text. This is true, but there wasn’t much of a discussion as to why that is. Well, there aren’t a lot of Marx texts about women. This is where including Marxist Feminist scholarship would be useful. There are feminist scholars who have made the connections. By in large these theorists were missing from the text. [Aside: I’m ready to throw down over anyone who wants to talk about domestic labor without referencing Foucault. I did a little sleuthing, and I know the Jacobin had a piece a few years ago about Foucault and his contributions to the left. The argument was we can critique him. Well, feminist scholarship is a critique of all other scholarship. Sometimes it is too much critique and not enough discussion about the actual arguments.] But really, what the book was trying to do was impose Marxist thought on the women’s movement. I was struck during the conversation how some things never change; Marxist thought breaks while feminist thought bends. This is because in Marxism we have to travel back every time to the beginning and apply principles, which can be really hard with some topics. In feminist thought, we use theorists that apply, and when one theory doesn’t work, we acknowledge it and say, this, this thing is where more work needs to be done. Then someone else does that work, but they find something else, and the scholarship is constantly changing.

One of the discussion leaders started talking about the books distinction between patriarchy and the patriarchy. The idea being people who say patriarchy aren’t referring to the theory that says all men oppress all women. The book then continues to talk about how patriarchy is bad for men too; bell hooks says so. This was when the book lost me, but the idea this book is for feminists to realize our relationship to socialism is also lost. This was when the discussion went off the rails for me too. When I say patriarchy I mean all men oppress all women and those who reside outside of the gender binary. This is the social structure we have. Not only that but for me the patriarchy is more than just gender (by the way completely a gender binary in this book save two references); it is race, class, sexual orientation, etc. (bell hooks said this too). White people are complicit in the oppression of black people because society is racist. When a group of people is determined by the way, they compare to those in power than any of those power traits you, have oppress others. It doesn’t matter if you mean for them to or not. For me, that line in the book is where I figured out this book wasn’t meant for me. It was meant for the men in that room talking about it. See, feminism isn’t scary. They even share some socialist roots with us. Nothing about the exclusion of traditionally feminine (and often black) labor from labor unions, though.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the reading group. I’ll go again. I’m just not sure how much they want to hear from people who disagree. Women’s Studies, we’d shout into the void—a room full of people who agreed with us, but I don’t know if the members of this group ever got that or if that is one of the functions in of the group. I'm struggling a lot recently with the way socialism interacts with other fields. I’m specifically thinking about how the Bernie campaign can’t go two feet without offending someone. I don’t understand, but then again, maybe it is just this bending vs. breaking idea. A world without capitalism would be great, but it wouldn’t be a world without oppression. Economic inequity isn’t the root of all oppression. Additionally, it diminishes the lived experiences of a lot of people to say economic equity will fix it. There is a wait your turn notion here that Bernie’s camp invokes in everyone they talk to apparently. That is what rubs people the wrong way.  

Once again accusations have been made, and I’m backing the victim so be warned

I have such mixed feelings on the porn industry. Consent and agency is key and usually I can just leave it at that. Porn doesn’t do much for me, but if everyone has agency then it doesn’t matter what my personal feelings are, right? But my mixed feelings aren’t just because I’m kind of prudish when it comes to watching people have sex, but because of the impact of capitalism on ALL THE THINGS, I’m always skeptical.

Here’s the thing, though, and might be why everyone is kind of freaking out a bit, I was cool with James Deen. I mean, again, I’m not so into porn, but he seemed cool enough and into consent. I even think he’s vaguely attractive. He identifies as a feminist and even had a sex column at the Frisky (which I’m sure is down now or on its way down). But identifying as a feminist isn’t a pass. You don’t get to claim to be into social justice and women’s equality only to turn around and assault someone.

One of the things that stuck with me after Stoya (Deen’s ex and fellow adult film star) tweeted about her rape was that people asked for proof because that is totally something you’re going to have. Totes cool guys. This situation isn’t going to have proof on either sides. She says he raped her, and he says he didn’t. At best the industries (both the feminist and porn industries) might turn on him, but more than likely nothing is going to happen. Joanna Angel has come out in support of Stoya, as have many others. Don’t get me wrong Stoya is facing a lot of backlash, and let’s not pretend the idea you can’t rape a sex worker isn’t coming into play here. Or the idea you can’t rape a partner. All the clichés, every last one.

After Stoya’s post, another adult film star, Tori Lux said Deen assaulted her too. I suspect we’ll see a few more before this is over. Deen has responded as he should and has to claiming the accusations are false, and more so using feminist language to do so. That sweet sting of a man who claims to be a feminist fucking things up; you’d think we’d be used to it. 

Oh mainstream feminists, get your house in order

There are moments when I don’t really know what is happening, so I sit back and watch till I get an idea of what's up. Well, as of this morning, Kate Harding and Jill Filipovic are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with Lena Dunham behavior toward her sister when they were children, which sounds borderline abusive (we’ll come back here). And Jessica Valenti is advocating (albeit in a jesting way) for lower wages for men because it will take 81 years for women to close the pay gap. At this point, all I have to say is nothing, but quietly walk toward the door. Guys, this is why people think we’re a joke.

So on Lena Dunham. I have yet to read the book. It was supposed to be the next book club book, but I don’t know if the ladies will still want to read it now. My understanding is Dunham discusses how weird she was as a child by recounting some stories from her relationship with her sister. The behavior is really coercive for example giving her sister candy for kisses.  However, some of the stories are much more overtly predatory. For example, Dunham would masturbate in bed with her sister or she touched her sister as a small child. Now, yes, all children are curious about their bodies and the bodies of the children around them. But this is not ok. First, in the book Dunham compares her behavior to that of a predator. Second, even kids need to understand boundaries. I am hesitant to say much in respect to Dunham’s sister’s experience, except that this sort of behavior (writing about these situations years later) could be perceived as a control tactic used by an abuser on their victim to revictimize. I’m also really concerned that no one seemed to mention this in the numerous reviews of the book. Dunham might be admitting to abusing a child, not relevant in the book reviews? Finally, Filipovic seems to be thinking that Dunham’s behavior might be explained by understanding what happened to Dunham to cause this behavior. Umm, why? Sure if Dunham was abused that sucks. But I don’t need to know that a rapist’s mom abused him. Abuse doesn’t create abusers, and in this case this assertion seems to come out of nowhere. Or more specifically, out of a defense for and apologetic response to Dunham.

In summary, I’m not going to condemn Dunham as an abuser, but I’m also not going to absolve her.

Now, I have issues with Valenti. I like her, I do, but she says and does things that aren’t inclusive. It annoys me to no end that she collects a paycheck for suggesting we pay people less. Now don’t get me wrong, I want to pay CEOs less. Paying people less doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. Fixing the gender pay gap doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. We need a market overhaul. We need an economic revolution. We need to pay people a living wage, and yeah if some people have to take a pay cut to accommodate that then we can talk about it. Paying men less isn’t going to fix anything just result in an even more underpaid workforce. See that’s the problem Valenti seems to be operating on the impression people are paid a legitimate and fair wage, well men. However, men of color aren’t, and women aren’t (obviously), but white men who work for low-wages aren’t making a fair wage either. This is the problem when people start talking about the pay gap. We use the average figure when talking about it as if all women make 71 cents on the dollar when in reality white men are the standard by which we measure with white women behind them, and Hispanic women making the least in comparison to white men. Honestly, we’re past this superficial conversation. We need pay equity, but we need to recognize that we need it across classes, races, sexual orientations, and gender among many, many more. This is a lazy and offensive article.

I expect better form Valenti. Honestly, I expect better from anyone who has a basic understanding on the economy, pay disparities, and gender.

Anyone arguing that things are getting out of hand for a potential abuser or that we should pay everyone less does not speak for me. We’re already fighting on every front between the stripping of voting and reproductive rights, access to food and water, and the criminalization of poverty, think we can all get on board with not supporting abusers and exploitative pay?

Tonight, I vote then I craft. I expect everyone who reads this to vote. Sure, it feels like my vote matters very little in Baltimore, after all this isn’t Ohio. But we have leadership getting in bed with developers so yeah, it matters. In fact I’d argue that local elections matter way more than the national ones in respect to concrete changes.

Feminism: we’re all kind of bad at it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about feminism, and it informs everything I do and think, well most things. Now, I’m thinking about all the non- or not-quite feminist things I do. Damn. Face-palm. This all started because Elissa Strauss has an article entitled “Welcome to the age of ambivalent feminism.”

Strauss argues that every generation of women come to terms with the discrimination and double-standards women have to deal with, and they oppose it in their own ways. Strauss continues to point out that we’re ambivalent about it, which goes to show that self-identified feminists can air their doubts and contradictions in relative safety. Strauss notes that Mindy Kaling, Lena Dunham, Roxane Gay, Jenny Lewis, and a variety of others contemplate the complexities of being a woman.

According to Strauss this is a good sign because “ambivalent feminism isn’t a sign of resistance so much as a reflection of what happens when real women try to live political and social ideals.” Strauss invokes the “the personal is the political” slogan, which she asserts is being inverted by modern feminists who are internalizing their political principles.

In the end Strauss is talking about how people who identify as feminist have to deal with conflicts from not meeting all the expectations set by the ideal or because of conflicting personal desires. So I’m torn. For me most of my feminist ideology conflicts come up in personal relationships and occasionally professionally. A professional example is much easier, in my current position I have to temper what I write when using data as to not make strong political recommendations. Have you met me? At the end of the day, maybe this is always going to happen, I’m not a moderate and someone else foots the bill. But my feminism means I have challenge the status quo when it fails people. Bad feminist.

Personally, some things are just easier for example, I don’t want kids. I’m never going to have to make the decision as to how to raise my children and balance a career. *self-high-five* Don’t get me wrong to each their own if you want to be a stay at home mom, go for it, but that isn’t my jam. Good feminist, but only because it doesn’t conflict with what I want = bad feminist. An example from the other side, and I can’t explain this at all. I’m pro-egalitarianism in relationships, which can sometimes translate into let’s each take care of ourselves and hang. Of course, that is clearly untrue because relationships are supposed to be about support for your partner—emotional support, but really anything your partner needs. I wrestle with this because even in friendships I find myself prioritizing my friends, but when I’m in a relationship/potential relationship, I start checking myself to make sure I’m not investing more time/of myself than my partner. That is crazy. I treat the man I’m dating poorly compared to how I treat my friends. Obviously, this stems from insecurities within the relationship. Bad feminist/really bad girlfriend. Another funny example, I would probably swoon when a dude opens a car door for me. I haven’t seen this happen outside of Ohio, but dear god it is sexy. And I know it isn’t about being polite; there is no reason to do this. Bad feminist. Sometimes I listen to objectifying/racist/misogynist/classist etc. pop music, read superficial anti-woman fiction and comics, watch terribly mind-numbing degrading TV. Bad feminist.

I could keep listing these things—but they are small. It all sums to I reside within a patriarchy and thus have to participate in it. Dworkin would not be pleased. She posited that all heterosexual sex was rape because it occurs within the patriarchy, and women are oppressed within the patriarchy. But who can possibly live by that standard? Well lesbians, but they would probably fail the anti-capitalist litmus test. Additionally, does any of this matter to anyone not writing think pieces or the opposition? No.

All that said, I don’t think this is ambivalent feminism; this is feminism within the patriarchy. Feminism within the patriarchy is limited as is any other ideology or identity that deviates from those protected by the patriarchy, which means white, male, hetero, cis, usually Christian—essentially those with all the power. I’m cool with my shortcomings on feminism. Sure, I’ll try to be better, but we should talk about where we can’t meet the ideals of feminism, not to change those ideals, but to address why.

Davis on the prison industrial complex and Gaza.

Angela Davis is everything. This is amazing, and I encourage you to watch the whole thing if you have the time. This video was sent to me via a friend from Colorlines.

So about bell, Bey, Jen, and Jill

I didn’t think I was going to write about the bell hooks critique of Beyonce. Specifically, because I didn’t completely agree with hooks. Calling Bey a terrorist is a bit much to me, but I hear hooks’ criticism. That said, the patriarchy reinforces sexism, racism, and classism. It does so by a full and complete embrace of capitalism. *drops mic*

I was willing to look the other way, kind of the way I do when everyone is all Obama does nothing wrong even when he’s using drones to kill children and deporting more people than any other president ever. I get it, sometimes we want to defend our own. I feel that way when someone I identify with when criticized. However, I take a minute and remember that we should be held accountable for our actions and if J law is going to make a rape joke then I’m not ok with it. That doesn’t mean I can’t like Jennifer Lawrence after all next to M she might be the only person in this world who appreciates French fries the way I do.

But you know what Jennifer Lawrence, Jill Abramson, and Beyonce have in common? The patriarchy and capitalism. Now, we all live in the patriarchy and thus we’re all influenced by it, and it has one hell of an influence. For example, I run, and during the summer I run about 15 to 20 to 25 miles a week. I do it because I like running, but I would be a liar if I didn’t acknowledge the pathological desire to be thin. I could write about the psychological reasons for this, but it isn’t important because even when you enjoy something you have to acknowledge the origin and influence of outside forces.

I bring up Jill Abramson because of a sentiment that kept coming up online: she isn’t one of us, and she benefits from racism which prioritizes white people over all others; she benefits from capitalism. She totally does. But she still should be paid fairly for her labor. One blogger I follow was so un-empathetic to Abramson while only weeks ago was willing to take on bell hooks over Beyonce. I don’t agree with everything hooks says, but she is an inspirational thinker who has pushed feminism forward despite some resistance.

My friend asked me last week if I thought Beyonce is a feminist. I think Beyonce thinks she is a feminist. I also think Beyonce falls short of my definition of feminism, but I don’t live up to my definition of feminism all the time. I mean, children probably made the jeans I’m wearing. I hope not, but maybe. See my feminism is political, and it is not in favor of capitalism and the inherit exploitation of vulnerable people involved in capitalism. Beyonce doesn’t have the problem with capitalism I do, in fact neither do Jennifer Lawrence or Jill Abramson. It doesn’t make them bad people (well it can), but it also means they don’t get a pass.

There are some things all feminists have to agree on: we’re all working toward equity between all genders and non-gender conforming people; equity between all races; control over your own health care (including choice); and a commitment to overturning and deconstructing the patriarchy and all the systems that hold it up including capitalism and racism. Not everyone is going to agree with this list, but I’d be skeptical of anyone who doesn’t.

Bell hooks is right that if Beyonce has complete creative control over her person and career than she has bought into the patriarchy because she is actively participating in the exploitation of herself and others. This was in response to Janet Mock saying that Beyonce isn’t being exploited by anyone because Bey is in control of herself. Then by hooks’ reasoning: Beyonce is a tool of the patriarchy. I still like “Pretty Hurts” and “Irreplaceable”.

Additionally, I think it is time we had a metaphorical come to Jesus moment: we have more of an obligation to critique those who we identify with instead of the arbitrary defense of all things we like. Beyonce doesn’t get a pass because she calls herself a feminist and happens to be one of the most powerful black women in the world, and Abramson doesn’t get a pass for being white—though who is even more interested if Abramson was fired for hiring too many women? Me. You know who also doesn’t get a pass, Michael Kimmel or my friends. But to criticize someone doesn’t mean we devalue everything about them; just in this one area they might need a little work.

God save the left-wing from themselves…a swansong on whiteness.

Michelle Goldberg, as you remember is afraid of diversity and decided to blame women and feminist of color for everything as far as I can tell because FOR THE MOVEMENT! This time Goldberg wants to weigh in on #CancelColbert, which again is all the women of color’s fault. I’m shocked, shocked I say.

“It’s increasingly clear that we are entering a new era of political correctness. Recently, we’ve seen the calls to #CacelColbert because of something outrageous said by Stephen Colbert’s blowhard alter ego, who has been saying outrageous tings regularly for nine years. Then there’s the sudden demand for ‘trigger warnings’ on college syllabi, meant to protect students from encountering ideas or images that may traumatize them…

First, this paragraph really stuck out to me because I’m in a class where I would love trigger warnings before this one kid speaks. Jesus Christ, he can’t shut the fuck up about how wrong suicide is and how those people who would kill themselves are selfish, or oh, yeah his rape joke in class because that’s appropriate. And there is totally no overlap as to people who have suffered sexual trauma and suicide. Pardon my tangent, but this seems way more like preserving the status quo than considering the best interests of the left. Additionally, the complete indifference and dismissal of the concerns of the people saying this is racist is very telling, because yes Virginia, liberals can be racists too.

Goldberg goes on to explain that it is happening overseas too because CENSORSHIP! She continues:

“Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in this 1965 essay ‘Repressive Tolerance,’ that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. ‘[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, movements, and exploitation,’ he wrote. ‘Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.”  *for those not aware, Marcuse is a philosopher who immigrated from Germany to the US, and someone Noam Chomsky knew and liked, but didn’t care for Marcuse’s work.*

Without reading the whole Marcuse essay, I can say no one is censoring anyone. Colbert and god help us, Goldberg can say whatever the fuck they want, but there are consequences for the things you say. I’m so fucking tired of people thinking you can say whatever the fuck you want and walk away. Check your privilege. Goldberg goes on to cite a scholar of radical feminist, which is fine, but I think people who read this blog will be able to identify the importance and the shortcomings of radical feminism so we won’t review that, if necessary I’m happy to, but I doubt it is necessary see McKinnon and Dworkin.

Goldberg continues:

“There’s disenchantment not just with electoral politics, but with liberal values as a whole. ‘White liberal’ has, once again, emerged as a favorite left-wing epithet.

“At times like this, politics contract. On the surface, the rhetoric appears more ambitious and utopian that ever—witness, for example, the apparently sincere claim by Suey Park, creator of the #CancelColbert hashtag, that Twitter activists intend to ‘dismantle the state.’ But at the same time, activism becomes less about winning converts and changing the world and more about created protected enclaves and policing speech.”

Pro tip: let’s not use the word policing as if a subjugated group has the power to police anyone but themselves. Particularly, when there is a system of policing people of color and women that is institutional policy and then the self-policing that goes on in these communities as an active protection against more discrimination. Secondly, to me changing and being more aware of the language we use, our action, etc., and how they contribute to the systematic oppression of others is changing the world. But Goldberg seems much more interested in having her swansong about whiteness being oppressed as if expanding the rights of others is somehow a zero sum game. I also have to reject Goldberg’s definition of liberalism which seems to be Clintonlike Democrats, well that is liberal, that is center. Want to join the liberal left? Let’s throw out The Electoral College and overturn McCutcheon and Citizen’s United.

Goldberg cites Ellen Willis about how the left-wing is anti-liberal, 

“’It’s the general repressiveness of the social climate that encourages moves to ban offensive speech or define any form of sexual oppression in the workplace as sexual harassment. The main effect of these maneuvers is to foment confusion, cynicism and sexual witch-hunts, trivialize sexual violence, and legitimize conservative demands for censorship—while at the same time ceding the moral high ground of free expression to the right.’”

Goldberg then descends into a well, they’ll learn their lesson when the right comes to power and we realize how important free speech is…Like with Occupy? Or sex work? Or the NSA? Oh, wait these are things happening when the “left” is in power. You know I must have missed Goldberg’s piece railing against the use of the NSA as an invasion of privacy and an infringement of free speech. And obviously, Goldberg just wrote a piece about the importance of diverse views in feminism, when she misrepresented the statements made by black feminism, and pretty much told women of color to sit down and shut up. That wasn’t a form of censorship at all.

See the argument Goldberg is making is the sit down, shut up, and wait your turn argument. Sure, stop-and-frisky is a thing, but we have to defeat the Republicans, so wait. Sure, hipster racism keeps being a thing, and we’re not sure who benefits from these jokes, but wait your turn. Sure, women’s rights are being attacked across the US, and a disproportional number of these bills disastrously impact low-income women, but that can wait, we have to pledge unyielding support of President Obama and Obamacare, even if we lose the birth control mandate. So I ask, what is the left Goldberg is trying to save? Because without women and people of color, but mostly women of color, the left is looking a lot like the right.