Anyone else get the idea that in some ways Sky Sports are quite glad to get rid of two expensive dinosaurs?
Gray and Keys were both costing a fair wack of cash.
And what's more, Sky Sports even (for one) get to (vaguely) look like they are on the side of the angels - standing UP against sexism! (Let's face it, Murdoch-corp are hardly known for their anti-sexist stances...)
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Clare and Ally: how a relationship should work
Each looks after the other, if needed the house and if existing the sprogs.
Isn't being good to each other how relationships should work? Regardless of sex/gender?
Ally is fabulous - as indeed is Clare, but the fact that his actions stir specific comment and praise shows the residual problems of gender stereotyping...
Isn't being good to each other how relationships should work? Regardless of sex/gender?
Ally is fabulous - as indeed is Clare, but the fact that his actions stir specific comment and praise shows the residual problems of gender stereotyping...
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Diet, surgery, harm
Via Clare a thought provoking review of issues raised in the [blurgh] Observer Woman magazine.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Reproductive Rights
From Pandagon a well articulated analysis of what's really going on in the anti-choice/pro-life brigade.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Feminism, blogging and the art of saying no
Here's the thing: some weeks ago - and thanks to the vagaries of net provision, working hours and sheer idle ineptitude on my part it has been weeks - I wrote a forward hinting post regarding feminist blogging. It was prompted by Amanda at Pandagon's thoughts on the topic and was subsequently reinforced by Ilyka's Pandagon post about women saying no. Back then, I indicated that these had spurred some thoughts in me and, whilst they're probably no longer that interesting, I thought I had better post them. It's not as if they can become irrelevant or out-of-date, but merely that events have overtaken things somewhat and other topics are pushing to be written about (not least of which, Daleks. Go figure my logic in that prioritising...).
Anyway, here I am presenting the musings that were originally pondered some weeks ago, first written some weeks ago, had a troubled gestation period during which Joe prompted for its posting, needed some serious editing for coherance, and which - in a neat twist - found an interesting echo in Lynsey Thomas's piece in the Guardian for Saturday 28 April 2007. So, with some updating, here are my thoughts:
***
The original prompt for Amanda's post was a male blogger writing about his response to and wish to engage with the feminist blogosphere [scroll to second part of his post]. And yes, I know, that term 'blogosphere' isn't well liked or accepted, but lets let that one go for the moment. Anyway, his gist came down to him wanting to read more personal narratives, the day-to-day engagement with feminism, rather than more theoretical, ideological, distant analyses in the vein of political writing. The strict binary that his remarks suggested exists is problematic in itself of course since rarely are sites an either/or. Amanda Marcotte's valid risposte was that whilst there was some legitimacy in seeing personal narratives as more engaging and illustrative of contemporary women's relationship, debate and their living with feminism, writing about issues from the personal perspective presents its own difficulties. One of these comes with the perils of blogging, its openness to comments from all and sundry and how certain topics can be almost guaranteed to set off some vile commentators. The example Amanda talked through was around pornography, but it could easily have been around any number of other topics. I'm a pretty small scale blog, but sometimes - as any trawl of site visits and searches can reveal - you can easily draw the ire and some seriously nasty comments on all manner of subjects.
In such an overheated atmosphere, even presenting the personal angle around particular debates such as porn can spur barbs and torments that overshadow the positive responses. Seasoned blog veterans may be able to brush the worst vileness away - or at least convince themselves they are unhurt by it. But smaller-scale blogs may find themselves stung. It can be less painful to be less contentious, to be less emotionally open about issues affecting our lives as women. How often do we hear phrases like "you're taking this too personally" in response to a criticism or comment made, especially when the implied or explicit suggestion is that any expression of feeling is clearly too much feeling?
As Amanda goes on:
The thing is that whilst I read several collective and feminist orientated blogs (Pandagon is just one of them), I am personally drawn to those blogs which rarely explicitly cite the concept of feminism but which are inherantly engaged with feminism. The very issues that challenge women in day to day existence; that force the politics of daily life to the foreground; that demand feminist awareness even if the word is not used.
Interestingly, something I have occasionally done is go through posts I have enjoyed reading and save the text, annotating it where it engages with debates key to feminism and its discourses. Whether it is around how we dress, how we work, our responses to representations of women on TV, our relationship to our bodies, our ways of dealing with emotions (bereavement, pregnancy, being single, being in a relationship, being angry, being happy) --- all of these engage with core debates from feminism. Dressing for whom? For the pleasure of whom? are you comfortable, or agonisedly on display? Can we get the time off we need to deal with family crises, caring duties? Why are the caring duties largely women's anyway? What about how work deals with male involvment with caring? How seriously are workers taken if alongside caring they also want to advance a career? What if we do/do not want to advance our careers? What should our relationship to work be? How do we deal with the behaviour of those above us? [I'm noting here the age-old debates about female dominated work environments and female bosses being rarely devoid of the same difficulties as mixed-sex ones - including why women bosses are often seen as harder, often more unsympathetic, or unable to be heard over male voices]. And that list just raises issues arising from the first two topics. But what those questions highlight is that it doesn't have to be an overtly feminist blog to be engaging with feminism or usefully contributing to feminist discourses. The debates of feminism are everywhere in the lives of women (and that also goes for those who actively disavow feminism as irrelevant to them - sadly, that would include many of the students I encounter).
Anyway, in a round-about way, thinking about what feminist blogging would, should or does like, also drew me to Ilyka's aforementioned post on 'saying no'. For surely one of the ideas underpinning both Amanda's post and the responses it drew in the comments box centres on the socialised difficulty of women saying 'no'? To be able to say 'no', to be able to express our discomfort - with porn for example - involves dealing with so many ingrained attitudes which historically have been socialised into many women that it can hurt to even confront the possibility of saying no. To be able to recognise our own feelings as ones which need us to say no, and then to actually say it.
Ilyka wrote:
Whilst part of me wants to cheer for her new-found respect in having learnt to say no, there is another part of me whose heart sinks at how this perpetuates the need to be ruthless in order to be taken seriously. Is there not a way in which we can learn to say 'no' sometimes without abandoning others to their fate, usually failure (who the hell would read exams to a blind student if someone doesn't say 'yes'?). Perhaps part of my desire to engage with the debate of 'saying no/yes' comes from my own struggles with the action. It's a contradiction born from the fact that saying 'yes' can often mean not being taken seriously whilst saying 'no' can sometimes cut us off from the very positive actions with which institutions and individuals should engage. Can there really only be one way to 'be' successful in the world? Does it have to always mean trampling, not accommodating, not helping others?
Ultimately of course one of the reasons why the 'saying no' debates is important to feminism is that often it is bound up with subjugating what we want to please other people: the idea of 'everyone else ahead of ourselves'. Whether we like it or not it is often perceived as a feminine trait; correspondingly it then becomes a feminist debate. Lynsey Thomas doesn't mention feminism in her piece in yesterday's Guardian Work supplement, but when she writes about her deep-seated and life-long (destructive) desire to please others and make then happy, I not only recognise something of myself but also mentally added my usual feminist debate annotations to the article. For the crux is that in saying 'yes' we often succeed only in making others happy: whilst that can provide second-hand happiness to us, the effect it can have on our self-esteem and therefore on our ability to ever say 'no' can be immense. Once the habit of saying yes is there, how can we achieve a comparable happiness in saying no since that at least suggests the probability of making someone unhappy? For women to learn to say no successfully is hard, and part of that is around how saying no is perceived. Responses to a woman saying no often fall into either "that's hard", as in unfeminine [negative sense] or a desexed sense of respecting being "appropriately tough on others" [positive sense]. Can there only be self-sacrifice or the sacrifice of others?
What we have to do is learn to live with ourselves, but also recognise that we have to fight to change the systems that rely on us saying yes and exploit our guilt when we say no. That means challenging assumptions that a well-placed 'no' does not make us arrogant and mean (pace Alix's comments in Ilyka's post) and that systems of work which demand, say, unreasonable flexibility need to change for the good of everyone (not just the person put under pressure to say 'yes').
And it also means we have to think about why saying 'yes' rarely stimulates the need to expand on why we say yes, but saying 'no' will almost always demand an explanation as to why, an unburdening and justifying of the action (as per thinking girl's comment in Ilyka's post). What we have to learn is to be comfortable in our saying no as well as yes, and to recognise where the difference between the two may demand changes not just in ourselves but also in the world around us.
I'm done. I can't even think straight to edit this damn post no more. Was it worth the wait?
[Apologies for typos, blogger spell-checker keeps wibbling]
Anyway, here I am presenting the musings that were originally pondered some weeks ago, first written some weeks ago, had a troubled gestation period during which Joe prompted for its posting, needed some serious editing for coherance, and which - in a neat twist - found an interesting echo in Lynsey Thomas's piece in the Guardian for Saturday 28 April 2007. So, with some updating, here are my thoughts:
***
The original prompt for Amanda's post was a male blogger writing about his response to and wish to engage with the feminist blogosphere [scroll to second part of his post]. And yes, I know, that term 'blogosphere' isn't well liked or accepted, but lets let that one go for the moment. Anyway, his gist came down to him wanting to read more personal narratives, the day-to-day engagement with feminism, rather than more theoretical, ideological, distant analyses in the vein of political writing. The strict binary that his remarks suggested exists is problematic in itself of course since rarely are sites an either/or. Amanda Marcotte's valid risposte was that whilst there was some legitimacy in seeing personal narratives as more engaging and illustrative of contemporary women's relationship, debate and their living with feminism, writing about issues from the personal perspective presents its own difficulties. One of these comes with the perils of blogging, its openness to comments from all and sundry and how certain topics can be almost guaranteed to set off some vile commentators. The example Amanda talked through was around pornography, but it could easily have been around any number of other topics. I'm a pretty small scale blog, but sometimes - as any trawl of site visits and searches can reveal - you can easily draw the ire and some seriously nasty comments on all manner of subjects.
In such an overheated atmosphere, even presenting the personal angle around particular debates such as porn can spur barbs and torments that overshadow the positive responses. Seasoned blog veterans may be able to brush the worst vileness away - or at least convince themselves they are unhurt by it. But smaller-scale blogs may find themselves stung. It can be less painful to be less contentious, to be less emotionally open about issues affecting our lives as women. How often do we hear phrases like "you're taking this too personally" in response to a criticism or comment made, especially when the implied or explicit suggestion is that any expression of feeling is clearly too much feeling?
As Amanda goes on:
... the thing to realize is that when we're intimidated away from telling our stories by the abuse and sexist stereotypes, we've been deprived of feminism's best rhetorical weapon. Stories are how people link the personal and the political, which is why our political enemies are hell bent on depriving us of those stories.Of course, as she concludes, "... the telling stories thing is easier said than done". Perhaps this is why a number of explicitly feminist blogs do focus on commentary on current events, activism and/or ideology; to engage otherwise leaves them open to (accusations of) vulnerability or the dangers of writing purely personal confessionals that do little other than lay out the difficulties of life without considering the tangled motivations - both social and personal - as to how and why those difficulties arise.
The thing is that whilst I read several collective and feminist orientated blogs (Pandagon is just one of them), I am personally drawn to those blogs which rarely explicitly cite the concept of feminism but which are inherantly engaged with feminism. The very issues that challenge women in day to day existence; that force the politics of daily life to the foreground; that demand feminist awareness even if the word is not used.
Interestingly, something I have occasionally done is go through posts I have enjoyed reading and save the text, annotating it where it engages with debates key to feminism and its discourses. Whether it is around how we dress, how we work, our responses to representations of women on TV, our relationship to our bodies, our ways of dealing with emotions (bereavement, pregnancy, being single, being in a relationship, being angry, being happy) --- all of these engage with core debates from feminism. Dressing for whom? For the pleasure of whom? are you comfortable, or agonisedly on display? Can we get the time off we need to deal with family crises, caring duties? Why are the caring duties largely women's anyway? What about how work deals with male involvment with caring? How seriously are workers taken if alongside caring they also want to advance a career? What if we do/do not want to advance our careers? What should our relationship to work be? How do we deal with the behaviour of those above us? [I'm noting here the age-old debates about female dominated work environments and female bosses being rarely devoid of the same difficulties as mixed-sex ones - including why women bosses are often seen as harder, often more unsympathetic, or unable to be heard over male voices]. And that list just raises issues arising from the first two topics. But what those questions highlight is that it doesn't have to be an overtly feminist blog to be engaging with feminism or usefully contributing to feminist discourses. The debates of feminism are everywhere in the lives of women (and that also goes for those who actively disavow feminism as irrelevant to them - sadly, that would include many of the students I encounter).
Anyway, in a round-about way, thinking about what feminist blogging would, should or does like, also drew me to Ilyka's aforementioned post on 'saying no'. For surely one of the ideas underpinning both Amanda's post and the responses it drew in the comments box centres on the socialised difficulty of women saying 'no'? To be able to say 'no', to be able to express our discomfort - with porn for example - involves dealing with so many ingrained attitudes which historically have been socialised into many women that it can hurt to even confront the possibility of saying no. To be able to recognise our own feelings as ones which need us to say no, and then to actually say it.
Ilyka wrote:
I’ve been caught in the first trap, the fear of saying “no,” dozens of times–someone close to me asks for something they don’t particularly need (or don’t particularly need from me, specifically); I hesitate just a second too long; having hesitated, I then get anxious, because now it looks like (dear heavens!) I might have been thinking of saying That Word; and so to cover up for it, I shower the other person in an effusive “yes.” Yes, of course! I only paused for a second because [some bullshit reason].I think this is a powerful demonstration of why we need feminist debates, feminist ideas, experiences, to be presented and explored and considered. But it is not without difficulty, and it is one I feel quite powerfully. Emily Jane writing in the comments to Ilyka's post remarked that "socialization... teaches us to undervalue women's time and commitment". In being 'giving' of her time, in saying 'yes' to every event and activity, she actually made herself undervalued by colleagues; now she does none of the extra activities or tasks, even those she previously enjoyed doing to help others, but she has now got the respect of her (new) colleagues.
But I’ve been caught in the second trap even more often, where I unthinkingly say “yes,” and only afterwards let my real feelings bubble up to the surface, and realize, “I don’t want to do this. I should have said ‘no.’”
I wouldn’t be too surprised if incidents like that help shore up the women-can’t-make-up-their-minds trope, either, because there have been occasions on which I’ve reversed myself just in time, just at the last minute, to say, “Wait–I meant ‘no’.” What looks like indecision or flightiness to an outside observer, though, is actually delayed recognition of feeling on my part. It isn’t that I have suddenly and arbitrarily changed my mind; it’s that I didn’t bother to consult my mind in the first place.
Whilst part of me wants to cheer for her new-found respect in having learnt to say no, there is another part of me whose heart sinks at how this perpetuates the need to be ruthless in order to be taken seriously. Is there not a way in which we can learn to say 'no' sometimes without abandoning others to their fate, usually failure (who the hell would read exams to a blind student if someone doesn't say 'yes'?). Perhaps part of my desire to engage with the debate of 'saying no/yes' comes from my own struggles with the action. It's a contradiction born from the fact that saying 'yes' can often mean not being taken seriously whilst saying 'no' can sometimes cut us off from the very positive actions with which institutions and individuals should engage. Can there really only be one way to 'be' successful in the world? Does it have to always mean trampling, not accommodating, not helping others?
Ultimately of course one of the reasons why the 'saying no' debates is important to feminism is that often it is bound up with subjugating what we want to please other people: the idea of 'everyone else ahead of ourselves'. Whether we like it or not it is often perceived as a feminine trait; correspondingly it then becomes a feminist debate. Lynsey Thomas doesn't mention feminism in her piece in yesterday's Guardian Work supplement, but when she writes about her deep-seated and life-long (destructive) desire to please others and make then happy, I not only recognise something of myself but also mentally added my usual feminist debate annotations to the article. For the crux is that in saying 'yes' we often succeed only in making others happy: whilst that can provide second-hand happiness to us, the effect it can have on our self-esteem and therefore on our ability to ever say 'no' can be immense. Once the habit of saying yes is there, how can we achieve a comparable happiness in saying no since that at least suggests the probability of making someone unhappy? For women to learn to say no successfully is hard, and part of that is around how saying no is perceived. Responses to a woman saying no often fall into either "that's hard", as in unfeminine [negative sense] or a desexed sense of respecting being "appropriately tough on others" [positive sense]. Can there only be self-sacrifice or the sacrifice of others?
What we have to do is learn to live with ourselves, but also recognise that we have to fight to change the systems that rely on us saying yes and exploit our guilt when we say no. That means challenging assumptions that a well-placed 'no' does not make us arrogant and mean (pace Alix's comments in Ilyka's post) and that systems of work which demand, say, unreasonable flexibility need to change for the good of everyone (not just the person put under pressure to say 'yes').
And it also means we have to think about why saying 'yes' rarely stimulates the need to expand on why we say yes, but saying 'no' will almost always demand an explanation as to why, an unburdening and justifying of the action (as per thinking girl's comment in Ilyka's post). What we have to learn is to be comfortable in our saying no as well as yes, and to recognise where the difference between the two may demand changes not just in ourselves but also in the world around us.
I'm done. I can't even think straight to edit this damn post no more. Was it worth the wait?
[Apologies for typos, blogger spell-checker keeps wibbling]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
My computer is FUBAR with Blogger and now I can't load my files here either...
I hate to say this, but feminism is going to have to wait...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"And if you're as sorry as you say, Why didn't you just say no?"
Wow, if I ever needed a prompt to write that afore-mentioned post in response to Amanda's musings on feminist blogging, then having The Wedding Present's excellent track "No" come up on shuffle as I read Ilyka's Pandagon post on women saying no from the end of March must surely be it.
Feminist blogging
A really fascinating post from Amanda over at Pandagon on feminist blogging. The debate in the comments afterwards is worth reading too.
It's the sort of thing I really should come back to (since at the moment I have a head that feels like its been shot through with a drill - not alcohol induced I assure you), so I'm going to tag this for myself somewhere and try and write my own response/comment on it.
Watch this space.
It's the sort of thing I really should come back to (since at the moment I have a head that feels like its been shot through with a drill - not alcohol induced I assure you), so I'm going to tag this for myself somewhere and try and write my own response/comment on it.
Watch this space.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Names
Loved the original article by Joanna Moorhead on women changing their names when they marry which the Guardian published just after Xmas (even if it is a well-trodden path for the paper). Loved even more the letters generated. Always fun to read this kind of thing.
Still, I was even more intrigued to find another article by Joanna Moorhead when I was looking online for the links today: a piece by her on the obscure name and persona of Leonora Carrington, surrealist artist.
For those who know me, and my long-term interest in Surrealism, they will certainly know that Leonora's name is well-known to me. She remains one of the most fascinating of Surrealist artists, and certainly one of the most magical in the way her painting and writing capture the excess of reality embodied by Surrealism.
Lovely to see that she is still going strong. There are some nice images of her work here and I especially love Portrait of the Late Mrs Partridge from 1947.
Still, I was even more intrigued to find another article by Joanna Moorhead when I was looking online for the links today: a piece by her on the obscure name and persona of Leonora Carrington, surrealist artist.
For those who know me, and my long-term interest in Surrealism, they will certainly know that Leonora's name is well-known to me. She remains one of the most fascinating of Surrealist artists, and certainly one of the most magical in the way her painting and writing capture the excess of reality embodied by Surrealism.
Lovely to see that she is still going strong. There are some nice images of her work here and I especially love Portrait of the Late Mrs Partridge from 1947.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, June 13, 2005
Why feminism still matters
Kara over at Radio Active (judging by today, site for the day!) tipped me off to this pile of badly thought through crap that got me really REALLY cranky (like I need much provocation).
The essay reports on violence amongst girls increasing. Well, firstly, I ain't saying that their stats are dubious, but I would have to say, really? Tell that to the fights I saw / experienced during my younger years.
Hmm, well, such problems of personal experience on the receiving end of girl violence being put aside, let's just look at this steaming nonsense and do some language analysis:
"Part of this spike in violence is related to evolving sex roles. Historically, boys have received messages from the culture that connect masculinity with physical aggression, while girls received opposite messages, encouraging passivity and restraint."
Well, thus far I would probably agree that these have indeed been the stereotypes perpetuated and promoted for 'social good'. But then it takes a wild leap and starts dropping in not-so-subtle messages we should read within the statements: I have highlighted these with italics for the slow of interpretation skills.
Now girls are barraged with images of "sheroes"—think Sydney Bristow on ABC's "Alias" or Uma Thurman's the Bride in "Kill Bill: Vol. 2"—giving them a wider range of role models and tacit permission to alter their behavior. Accordingly, says Spivak, some girls have "shifted from internalizing anger to striking out."
Good lord, we're being barraged! We're utterly overwhelmed by female action heroes who are able to think for themselves and make their own life choices without men putting them down or blocking their efforts... except not.
And heavens to Murgatroyd, what will women do if they have a wider range of role models?! Surely this will spin the earth off it's social axis and leave us at the mercy of the aliens?!
Tacit permission, eh? Intepretation? Were we not meant to read these possibilities in this way, as an invitation? It was just amusing?
Accordingly...some girls have "shifted from internalizing anger to striking out": Oh, that will never do. Clearly that was just plain wrong.
[Please, someone note I am being ironic...]
But then we get the real juicy knock: who to blame for this.
The women's movement, which explicitly encourages women to assert themselves like men, has unintentionally opened the door to girls' violent behavior.
WHAAAAAAT?!!!
Okay, many women have a problem with feminism, partly because they falsely believe that feminism is a one-size fits all ideology. Feminism has never been about making women like men - duh, why would we? - but it has been about opening ideas, opportunities, challenging accepted codes of behaviour (and exploring why they are accepted). At its best and most radical feminism should change the world and the way we think; our approach to social communities and responsibilities, our efforts to make the world a better place through thoughts and deeds. Feminism takes a lot of flack for things that it ain't (like being anti-men: still an old favourite I see trotted out on occasions) but rarely does it get many plaudits for the things it has made societies re-think.
I am a feminist: I also think it's pretty darn difficult to be one without being engaged with social justice in general (and likewise I grant short shrift to those who promote a 'come-the-revolution-sisters' mentality that ignores the particularities of women in social change).
Feminist and proud of it! The type of lazy writing that this article highlights just demonstrates further why feminism must not give up explaining and educating and changing the world.
And btw. Sorry the quotes aren't indented but blogger had a wibble about blockquote. Natch.
The essay reports on violence amongst girls increasing. Well, firstly, I ain't saying that their stats are dubious, but I would have to say, really? Tell that to the fights I saw / experienced during my younger years.
Hmm, well, such problems of personal experience on the receiving end of girl violence being put aside, let's just look at this steaming nonsense and do some language analysis:
"Part of this spike in violence is related to evolving sex roles. Historically, boys have received messages from the culture that connect masculinity with physical aggression, while girls received opposite messages, encouraging passivity and restraint."
Well, thus far I would probably agree that these have indeed been the stereotypes perpetuated and promoted for 'social good'. But then it takes a wild leap and starts dropping in not-so-subtle messages we should read within the statements: I have highlighted these with italics for the slow of interpretation skills.
Now girls are barraged with images of "sheroes"—think Sydney Bristow on ABC's "Alias" or Uma Thurman's the Bride in "Kill Bill: Vol. 2"—giving them a wider range of role models and tacit permission to alter their behavior. Accordingly, says Spivak, some girls have "shifted from internalizing anger to striking out."
Good lord, we're being barraged! We're utterly overwhelmed by female action heroes who are able to think for themselves and make their own life choices without men putting them down or blocking their efforts... except not.
And heavens to Murgatroyd, what will women do if they have a wider range of role models?! Surely this will spin the earth off it's social axis and leave us at the mercy of the aliens?!
Tacit permission, eh? Intepretation? Were we not meant to read these possibilities in this way, as an invitation? It was just amusing?
Accordingly...some girls have "shifted from internalizing anger to striking out": Oh, that will never do. Clearly that was just plain wrong.
[Please, someone note I am being ironic...]
But then we get the real juicy knock: who to blame for this.
The women's movement, which explicitly encourages women to assert themselves like men, has unintentionally opened the door to girls' violent behavior.
WHAAAAAAT?!!!
Okay, many women have a problem with feminism, partly because they falsely believe that feminism is a one-size fits all ideology. Feminism has never been about making women like men - duh, why would we? - but it has been about opening ideas, opportunities, challenging accepted codes of behaviour (and exploring why they are accepted). At its best and most radical feminism should change the world and the way we think; our approach to social communities and responsibilities, our efforts to make the world a better place through thoughts and deeds. Feminism takes a lot of flack for things that it ain't (like being anti-men: still an old favourite I see trotted out on occasions) but rarely does it get many plaudits for the things it has made societies re-think.
I am a feminist: I also think it's pretty darn difficult to be one without being engaged with social justice in general (and likewise I grant short shrift to those who promote a 'come-the-revolution-sisters' mentality that ignores the particularities of women in social change).
Feminist and proud of it! The type of lazy writing that this article highlights just demonstrates further why feminism must not give up explaining and educating and changing the world.
And btw. Sorry the quotes aren't indented but blogger had a wibble about blockquote. Natch.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Flipping Ada! David Duff gets his panties in a twist about culture and class debates
I go away for a couple of days (bank hol weekend: a nice bit of gardening since you ask) and I come back to a flurry of comments to-and-fro between Reidski and de Duff. AND I find yet another post all about me (shucks) on Duff's blog (one would almost think he has a real issue with what I write: as if it matters much in the great scheme of things...)
Well, as a riposte to this demolition of me (how I quake to have stirred such antagonism: it's almost as if these debates are important enough for Duff to be frightened by their mighty influence?) can I offer a few remarks?
Presumably it's perfectly fine to accept that systems of power have inequalities and never shall these be thought about, discussed or challenged? On that basis, I suspect most of us would still not have a vote and would be condemned to poverty in numbers even greater than those that currently suffer such an experience in our so-called free world. And don't try any "hard work reaps reward" rubbish: check out my previous remarks more extensively.
Regarding art history (though I think it can apply to many aspects of society and history), if feminism is to mean anything it cannot just add on women to the history of great artists since that leaves fundamentally unchallenged the reasons why women have generally been excluded from lists of great artists. Likewise, as the same post just cited said, from whence the quote about feminist art history was ripped (and can I just state for the record I'm not "some dizzy whore, 1804"), nor is it enough to separate off feminism into a ghetto labelled 'feminism'. I would like to think that we can ask questions about why women are economically so disadvantaged, why the structures of power continue to devalue their work and contributions to society and culture, and why women being more like men ultimately doesn't really change anything. Both ghettoisation and the add-on approach to including women in history fails to explore how certain default positions are set as the norm against which everything else must be marked. It's how many political parties are able to demonise 'the other' - shouldn't we at least be thinking about how this happens and its consequences (one of which is some currently rampantly racist ideologies).
In terms of upsetting applecarts ...Nottingham has built its reputation on trying to be in the same league as Oxbridge, and it attracts a fair number of very nice middle-class boys and gals to its towers. Some of these are beautifully well-mannered, with perfect etiquette, and of reasonably good intelligence. I get a hell of a lot out of teaching students, and always have: these students included. But you can only cope with so many such students with four first-names, RP, and a near-bottomless parental fund prepared to financially support these students. They frequently arrive with a bunch of prejudices and a lot of ignorance about how the other 90% lives. Before long you start feeling that the efforts (both intellectual, social and economic) required to successfully complete a degree are worth something indefinably greater for those without advantages. Mature students, working class students, for whom the decision to go into (further/higher) education is not an automatic process: I admit it, I get a really big buzz about working with these students. And for these students, seeing examples of others like them breaking through the systems can be really empowering. Moreover, explaining just how hard it can be to those who arrive with the full weight of advantage behind them, helps me to keep my head and makes me constantly aware of how they still dominate so many of the most powerful structures in society.
On matters Popish, I would say that thus far we have had a mixed bag of remarks from PapaRazi. On some issues he has proved more conciliatory than expected (eg on dialogue between faiths), but overall his election does not suggest a shift to a more liberal and open theological and social stance (on sexuality, the place of women etc). What a shame that Liberation Theology has been effectively outlawed by the Catholic church...
As for disputing the inherent racism of the Tory party's current elision of immigration and asylum... could anyone tell me how the current Tory party are NOT racist? (On second thoughts, PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT inundate me with discussions about how the Tories are just nice fluffy bunny-lovers who are not at all racist: I am more than capable of searching the web and reading books and articles from the press. I've read their stuff and plenty of the journalism supporting them and frankly it just makes me sick to see how this panders to 'worst-fears' attitudes.... And don't think I haven't noticed how Labour frequently wears similarly shabby politics on its sleeves).
And to conclude: education. the minds of the young deserve to mix fully and freely. Yes I do believe that students should encounter ideas that alert them to the power structures of society. I do think that the constant division of public/private schooling does nothing to help debate or challenge those structures. Since they are largely damaging and restrictive, I do want students to become aware of them, how they operate and the effect they have. To respond to one of Duff's correspondents, anything so crass as playing a pro-peace record with a fulmination for the pupil audience to be something other than are is doomed to failure (and rightly so). The problem is that accepting the status quo, accepting the current structures as normal and rightful dooms too many to failure and subjugation. And I can't really sit comfortable with perpetuating that, no matter how many Duffs take me to task for propounding my views online...
Ah well. I could probably spend all my days replying to the Duff and his criticisms which hardly feels productive. Nevertheless, I hope that he and my other readers (I have some!) have got something out of reading my musings.
Well, as a riposte to this demolition of me (how I quake to have stirred such antagonism: it's almost as if these debates are important enough for Duff to be frightened by their mighty influence?) can I offer a few remarks?
Presumably it's perfectly fine to accept that systems of power have inequalities and never shall these be thought about, discussed or challenged? On that basis, I suspect most of us would still not have a vote and would be condemned to poverty in numbers even greater than those that currently suffer such an experience in our so-called free world. And don't try any "hard work reaps reward" rubbish: check out my previous remarks more extensively.
Regarding art history (though I think it can apply to many aspects of society and history), if feminism is to mean anything it cannot just add on women to the history of great artists since that leaves fundamentally unchallenged the reasons why women have generally been excluded from lists of great artists. Likewise, as the same post just cited said, from whence the quote about feminist art history was ripped (and can I just state for the record I'm not "some dizzy whore, 1804"), nor is it enough to separate off feminism into a ghetto labelled 'feminism'. I would like to think that we can ask questions about why women are economically so disadvantaged, why the structures of power continue to devalue their work and contributions to society and culture, and why women being more like men ultimately doesn't really change anything. Both ghettoisation and the add-on approach to including women in history fails to explore how certain default positions are set as the norm against which everything else must be marked. It's how many political parties are able to demonise 'the other' - shouldn't we at least be thinking about how this happens and its consequences (one of which is some currently rampantly racist ideologies).
In terms of upsetting applecarts ...Nottingham has built its reputation on trying to be in the same league as Oxbridge, and it attracts a fair number of very nice middle-class boys and gals to its towers. Some of these are beautifully well-mannered, with perfect etiquette, and of reasonably good intelligence. I get a hell of a lot out of teaching students, and always have: these students included. But you can only cope with so many such students with four first-names, RP, and a near-bottomless parental fund prepared to financially support these students. They frequently arrive with a bunch of prejudices and a lot of ignorance about how the other 90% lives. Before long you start feeling that the efforts (both intellectual, social and economic) required to successfully complete a degree are worth something indefinably greater for those without advantages. Mature students, working class students, for whom the decision to go into (further/higher) education is not an automatic process: I admit it, I get a really big buzz about working with these students. And for these students, seeing examples of others like them breaking through the systems can be really empowering. Moreover, explaining just how hard it can be to those who arrive with the full weight of advantage behind them, helps me to keep my head and makes me constantly aware of how they still dominate so many of the most powerful structures in society.
On matters Popish, I would say that thus far we have had a mixed bag of remarks from PapaRazi. On some issues he has proved more conciliatory than expected (eg on dialogue between faiths), but overall his election does not suggest a shift to a more liberal and open theological and social stance (on sexuality, the place of women etc). What a shame that Liberation Theology has been effectively outlawed by the Catholic church...
As for disputing the inherent racism of the Tory party's current elision of immigration and asylum... could anyone tell me how the current Tory party are NOT racist? (On second thoughts, PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT inundate me with discussions about how the Tories are just nice fluffy bunny-lovers who are not at all racist: I am more than capable of searching the web and reading books and articles from the press. I've read their stuff and plenty of the journalism supporting them and frankly it just makes me sick to see how this panders to 'worst-fears' attitudes.... And don't think I haven't noticed how Labour frequently wears similarly shabby politics on its sleeves).
And to conclude: education. the minds of the young deserve to mix fully and freely. Yes I do believe that students should encounter ideas that alert them to the power structures of society. I do think that the constant division of public/private schooling does nothing to help debate or challenge those structures. Since they are largely damaging and restrictive, I do want students to become aware of them, how they operate and the effect they have. To respond to one of Duff's correspondents, anything so crass as playing a pro-peace record with a fulmination for the pupil audience to be something other than are is doomed to failure (and rightly so). The problem is that accepting the status quo, accepting the current structures as normal and rightful dooms too many to failure and subjugation. And I can't really sit comfortable with perpetuating that, no matter how many Duffs take me to task for propounding my views online...
Ah well. I could probably spend all my days replying to the Duff and his criticisms which hardly feels productive. Nevertheless, I hope that he and my other readers (I have some!) have got something out of reading my musings.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Miss or Mrs?
Yesterday, Lucy Mangan in the Guardian explored the pitfalls and perils of titles: Miss, Mrs or Ms. It set me thinking about my own experiences.
For many years I have curtly corrected banks, cold-callers, service-industries etc on my identity. I have often been given the option of Miss or Mrs - rarely Ms - and I have usually tried to get them to use Ms (though this is much harder work than it should be). But what has often irked me more than what title to grant me has been the assumption of my name in conjunction with that title. If I am answering the phone at home when they ask for Cloud, they will often assume that I am 'Mrs Cloud' ('Mrs his-name'). This has also been played out on occasions when I have been phoning to arrange a service visit at home, only to be greeted by astonishment that I am not able to be at home whenever they please with no notice (the corollary of this is when I will say my partner could be at home and they then refer to him as 'Mr Rullsenberg'; that is, 'Mr my-name').
I found a way to get around this - though I accept it is not for everyone and I wish there were ways to make the use of Ms more acceptable. I went and completed a PhD (I hasten to add that was not my main reason for doing it). Although I never thought I would use it in that way, there is something very empowering about deflating an irksome twerp who cannot comprehend that I am not 'Mrs his-name' by replying I am "Dr. my-name". Of course, as my doctorate in is the socially useful (!) field of American Cultural Studies, I have to remind myself that ultimately I am going to be hopeless on a plane if the cry goes out "is there a doctor on board?" - unless they want a cultural analysis of a text or painting. But the title of Dr. does still command a swift change of tone and I take these small triumphs where I can, especially if I am not even given the option of Ms (and sometimes they do not even give the option of Miss!)
Of course, this all reminds me of the anecdote about Einstein (?) when someone came by to see 'Dr. Einstein' and his housekeeper informed the visitor that he was "not the kind of doctor who does anybody any good." [Some might say that medical doctors more often fall into that category than they should, but I'll take the limitations of my field on the chin and accept that ultimately my work probably doesn't change anybody's life in the significant daily way that a medical doctor can do].
For many years I have curtly corrected banks, cold-callers, service-industries etc on my identity. I have often been given the option of Miss or Mrs - rarely Ms - and I have usually tried to get them to use Ms (though this is much harder work than it should be). But what has often irked me more than what title to grant me has been the assumption of my name in conjunction with that title. If I am answering the phone at home when they ask for Cloud, they will often assume that I am 'Mrs Cloud' ('Mrs his-name'). This has also been played out on occasions when I have been phoning to arrange a service visit at home, only to be greeted by astonishment that I am not able to be at home whenever they please with no notice (the corollary of this is when I will say my partner could be at home and they then refer to him as 'Mr Rullsenberg'; that is, 'Mr my-name').
I found a way to get around this - though I accept it is not for everyone and I wish there were ways to make the use of Ms more acceptable. I went and completed a PhD (I hasten to add that was not my main reason for doing it). Although I never thought I would use it in that way, there is something very empowering about deflating an irksome twerp who cannot comprehend that I am not 'Mrs his-name' by replying I am "Dr. my-name". Of course, as my doctorate in is the socially useful (!) field of American Cultural Studies, I have to remind myself that ultimately I am going to be hopeless on a plane if the cry goes out "is there a doctor on board?" - unless they want a cultural analysis of a text or painting. But the title of Dr. does still command a swift change of tone and I take these small triumphs where I can, especially if I am not even given the option of Ms (and sometimes they do not even give the option of Miss!)
Of course, this all reminds me of the anecdote about Einstein (?) when someone came by to see 'Dr. Einstein' and his housekeeper informed the visitor that he was "not the kind of doctor who does anybody any good." [Some might say that medical doctors more often fall into that category than they should, but I'll take the limitations of my field on the chin and accept that ultimately my work probably doesn't change anybody's life in the significant daily way that a medical doctor can do].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)