tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post1551988217723435081..comments2024-03-04T15:58:36.694+00:00Comments on Versatile Identities: What do we ask of one another when we ask one another to identify as feminist?Helenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787708792184032639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-53049156511159767272011-10-02T23:43:21.778+01:002011-10-02T23:43:21.778+01:00Interesting points, both in the blog and the comme...Interesting points, both in the blog and the comment above. While I am in no way qualified to discuss this on a level beyond the immediately obvious, I thought I might weigh in on a few points (so... you know, disregard as you see fit).<br /><br />It seems that there is a conflation of feminist and 'equalitarian', a category I'll readily admit to inventing in a wine induced haze. I'll readily admit to being the latter, in that it is a sub-set of my already liberal egalitarian instincts. Someone who perceives that women have just an important contribution to society as men do, and perhaps more importantly, someone who believes that gender (as well as certain other characteristics such as race, sexual persuasion etc.) should not preclude ambitions in any life goals.<br /><br />From this, there are two (from my perspective) important qualifications. First is the recognition that gender is still an issue from a societal perspective due to the hangover (and that is an apt description) of tradition. The headaches of traditionally assigned gender roles combine with the nausea caused by all too familiar stereotypes (on all sides), and lead us to the familiar promise of teetotalism...before we get tempted again.<br /><br />The second is the question: if feminisim is not, in fact, equal to equalitarianism (which I admit I have not offered any proof for), then what is it? Positive discrimination which would specify gender proportions in boardrooms? Tax credits for women that raise children, regardless of marital or employment status? And if someone agrees with these in a narrow moral sense - i.e. agree that, ceteris paribus, these are good things, if they disagree on a wider moral sense - i.e. other aspects of society should be considered such that they are held to be equally important as gender equality, where does one draw the line? This applies both to self definition as feminist and a wider question of priority.<br /><br />As it stands, I am not in a position to consider this to a deeper level, due to my aforementioned lack of qualifications, and previously unmentioned lack of sleep. Good post though Ms. V.I., it's not often I read something I feel the need to comment on. I hope it made sense!sizjamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05341620519421565768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-5922552225582886052011-10-02T19:53:41.611+01:002011-10-02T19:53:41.611+01:00I think you’re highlighting an interesting problem...I think you’re highlighting an interesting problem for feminists, Helen. My feeling is that as feminists- and I identify as a feminist- we may have been so keen to convince other people that they’re feminists, that we forgot to step back and think about what this really means. <br /><br />We’ve basically reduced the term ‘feminist' to meaning simply ‘someone that’s for equality of the sexes.' Ok, yes, that’s essentially true. But we don’t necessarily talk to those people who reluctantly embrace the label ‘feminist’ about the implications of this, both in terms of our everyday lives as feminists, and more broadly the means and ends of how we envisage achieving an equal society. Maybe because we’re not that sure ourselves!<br /><br />Once could argue that we’re so keen to convince people to become feminists that we’ve neutralised the term, make it more palatable, but robbing it of its radical potential in the process. I think this is a response to the challenge of ‘post-feminism’; we so wanted to convince people that feminism was alive and well that we didn’t think hard enough about how to make the term meaningful.<br /><br />In the process, what we’ve accidentally done- I fear!- is play into the hands of anti-feminists by making the label ‘feminist’ a catch-all term for anyone that feels they’re ‘for the equality of the sexes’. So people can claim all kinds of decisions are predicated on ‘feminist’ principles, even if they don’t look very feminist close up. Of course, this is also one of the challenges of ‘post-feminism’ which claims that we’re all feminist now and commits all kinds of horrors apparently under the influence of feminist ideas... and so we’re back to square one again and where we go from there, I have no idea.Sineadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02069723978432149356noreply@blogger.com