You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘feminists’ tag.
Quote from a real FBI file in 2002:
Source advised that the females of the anarchist’s movement are in leadership positions in Eugene, Oregon. These females are described as being very feminist and militant.
Certain second-wavers would have it that I don’t use the word “feminist” too much because I am weak, or afraid to use it, or have given in to some sort of societal pressure not to stand up for women’s issues.
Wouldn’t you know that my fraught relationship with that word is the result of self-education, listening to the voices of marginalized women, and a large amount of introspection? You see, I was able to use my own brain power to autonomously decide “feminist” is problematic, just like any normal human being!
To wit, “feminism” has become so closely allied with, and claimed by, women of privilege that to claim it would be a vote of support for privileged (mostly Western, white, middle-upper class, heterosexual) women and against the repeatedly expressed concerns of the rest of us: trans women, queer women, poor and low-income women, women of color, non-Western women, differently-abled women.
I haven’t just seen this on the blogosphere, in the various wars where WOC critique white feminists’ passive racism, and a bunch of white self-described feminists leap into the breach to try and silence the WOC voices and validate the white ones. I have seen this in real non-computer-mediated life. I have literally observed white feminists deliberately push women of color back to the margins just as the WOC are trying to push to the center. I have seen queer women’s specific needs regarding sexuality, relationship formation, and child-care sidelined as less important. And etcetera.
I have seen white feminists get angry at the suggestion that power within this supposedly all-inclusive women’s movement be shared. Race is a separate issue, a distraction from the sisterhood, they say. So is disability. So is recognizing the very different life experiences of women from different social classes.
It is almost too painful to even discuss what cisgendered feminists say about trans women. Let’s just say that the majority of cisgendered feminists aren’t at all convinced that trans women’s issues are worth a modicum of their time.
I can’t use the word feminism anymore without thinking about all of this. The liberation of privileged white women has little to do with my liberation. Until feminists realize that “[their] liberation is bound up with mine” I don’t have much motivation to join their exclusive movement.
Please read this article at the Guardian to get the perspective of a woman of color on this matter.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
I sifted through blogs and media to find out what women bloggers and writers both obscure and well-known are saying about the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
I noticed one thing while researching. Overwhelming, white, straight women are writing about this issue. Queer women and women of color and QWOC are not as focused on this issue as white straight women are. Is abortion a white, straight issue?
Kate Harding at Salon: Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women
Jessica Arons at Think Progress: The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access
Jill Filipovic at Feministe: Stupak Amendment: A Coup for Republicans
Kjerstin Johnson at Bitch Magazine: Health Care Reform and the Stupak Amendment
Sarah Jaffe at Global Comment: Hey Stupak, women’s bodies are not bargaining chips
Natalia Anatova at her eponymous blog: Way to go, Democrats
Melissa McEwan at Shakesville: Our Mendacious President
Pilgrim Soul at the Pursuit of Harpyness: You Can Put Down Your Champagne Now
M. Leblanc at Bitch Ph.D: Life-saving, life-changing, affordable health care
Echidne at Echidne of the Snakes: Now In The Pulpit: E.J. Dionne
Sara E. Anderson at F-Words: Why not abortion insurance?
Amy Siskind at The Daily Beast: How Obama Sold Women Out
Latoya Peterson at Jezebel: Message to Obama: Abort the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
and: Wimpy Wimpy Wimpy: Democrats Are Dithering on Issue of Abortion
Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling at the New York Times: Trading Women’s Rights for Political Power
Dr. Susie Baldwin at RH Reality Check: Another Doctor Mad as Hell
Amie Newman at RH Reality Check: Dear Progressive Allies in Health Care Reform: Where Were You on the Stupak Amendment?
Late on the draw, but I feel that this is an important issue, so [fill in obvious cliché here].
A bunch of awesome disabled feminists have recently addressed the ableism present on popular feminist site Feministing. Read about the sequence of events and those involved at this ain’t livin’.
If ableism is an unfamiliar word for you, you can learn more at my 101 collection page.
If I spent the next week typing “LOL”, and taking only two 15-minute breaks a day and sleeping only three hours a night, I still would not be able to properly express my reaction to this amazing news.
Professors and feminists have emasculated and dumbed-down the Holy Bible, and inserted their socialist agenda, you see. To be precise, “The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook.”
Vomit-worthy, if you ask me. Who wants anyone with higher education, or who holds the opinion that women are people, to be translating ancient Greek and Hebrew texts? Disgusting. Next thing you’ll tell me is that there was a ghey in the translating room.
In response, the Conservative Bible Project has begun to translate the Bible in accordance with conservative principles.
Does it matter to these Bible-rewriters that the Bible was originally written before socialism, feminism, conservatism or liberalism were invented? No it does not. Not one wit. Because emasculating socialist feminist professors can time travel. Satan taught them how.
I mean, are you not troubled to learn that:
Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.
Or that liberals have somehow inserted forgiveness into the Bible in such a way that it sounds desirable:
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
Or that liberals totally made up John 7:53-8:11, where Jesus tells the angry crowd about to stone an adulteress, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”:
Amid this scholarship, why is the emphasis on this passage increasing? The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. Liberals cite this passage to oppose the death penalty, a misuse that has been criticized.
Actually, this part of the Conservative Bible Project gets a bit scary, as the article goes on to say:
The Mosaic laws clearly state death as a punishment for sin. So the argument that an individual must be perfect is not relevant. The God-ordained government has the responsibility for punishment.
My quibbles with the godly rewriters of the Bible on this point:
A) Um, doesn’t “Mosaic” law say something like “Thou shalt not kill”? Or maybe I’m getting the Bible mixed up with something I read in the liberal media, like a NYT article.
B) Are we talking about a theocracy that kills people for sinning against the Conservative Bible?
C) Where do I sign up for that!?
The Conservative Bible will also remove the liberal bias that squelched Jesus’ true message of free-market capitalism, which is explained in Conservative Translation Guideline #7: “Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.”
And, just a little FYI, while you were off reading the Communist Manifesto or killing babies, a new language has developed, the “conservative language,” and the Bible must be translated into it posthaste.
Additional less important guidelines include… recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.
Is this an example of Poe’s Law? I.e. that it is vanishingly impossible to distinguish real fundamentalism from parody.
HAVE YOU HUGGED A CHRISTO-FASCIST TODAY?
Check out the 5th Carnival of Feminists over at Zero at the Bone.
Lots of good reading to do. They’ve got some big names, they’ve got some little names. (I’m a little name, FYI.)
I recently had the privilege to meet fellow feminist bloggers from Evil Slutopia in person!
Yay! Not only are they super for posting about me (my favorite topic), but also for posts such as Margaret Cho: Evil Slut?
From their FAQ:
The term “evil slut” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what some people might call a liberal, pro-choice, feminist, open-minded, strong-willed, outspoken, powerful woman who has the courage to do what she feels is right (not just what she’s been told) and to be her own person regardless of what anyone else thinks.