silentpunk:

malarchi:

silentpunk:

hmm..

seems to me that when we bring up the supposed failings of feminism, they are eerily similar to the pitfalls of the patriarchy.

I mean, the criticism that feminism comes under from its own side (i.e. not the nonsense spat out by sexists) is usually centred around how individuals who call themselves feminists have either failed to be feminist enough or failed to adhere properly to other positive parallel movements. I have heard of people who call themselves feminist being transphobic, homophobic, racist… time and time again this nasty fault is linked to them also identifying as feminist.

I believe, as many of us do, that we live in a rather unfair world which encourages the alienation and oppression of certain groups of people; there is no reason to think that prejudices that lead to institutionalised oppression and alienation will not leak into positive movements. I take issue with many people’s point that this is an inherent failing of the movement. A movement for women’s rights is always going to be for women’s rights, nobody, not even Sarah Palin, can change that, no matter how much she might call herself a feminist. It can’t be more than that, and it will never be less than that. I call myself a feminist but it’s not the only thing I am. I’m an activist in many fields, I’m an ally to many causes. There are some people who are feminist but also free-market capitalists. I don’t think this changes what feminism is, I think it’s a cause, and you can be part of it or not.

I’m a big fan of anarchist ideals. I am also aware that almost all anarchist gatherings and groups are populated and dominated by men. These men could be utter bastards (let’s face it they probably are), this doesn’t change what anarchism means. Anarchist groups may have patriarchal leanings, may have sexist members but this isn’t because of some flaw in anarchist doctrines, this is because we still exist in a patriarchal world and anarchist groups unfortunately do not exist in a vacuum.

So maybe next time we talk about how someone who identifies as feminist fucks up, we shouldn’t say ‘that’s the problem with feminism’ or ‘some feminists are like that’ because it isn’t accurate or constructive to do so, oppressive behaviour is much much much more likely to be a product of the status quo than of a positive civil rights cause.

Oh man, I actually have exact problem, which is a bit terrible of me. I’ve begun to really hate associating and labelling myself as part of a specific group because of the few arseholes in there. This is to the extent that I’m actually reluctant to call myself an Atheist, purely because of all the fuckers who seem to be using atheism to just be horrifically mean and cruel to anyone who has religious beliefs; who I imagine only do that in an attempt to satisfy their own insecure beliefs.

So is that what being an Atheist means then? That I have to now actively deride other peoples beliefs?

I guess that’s one of the problems with being part of a group like that. People will attack individuals but attribute their actions to the group as a whole. Maybe that’s the sacrifice you have to make? Even though some truly horrible people associate themselves with your cause, I suppose you just have to accept them, because at least they’re pushing the movement forward.

…Even Sarah Palin…

hmm, well if we use Sarah Palin as an example. She does not do feminist things, not really. My point about feminism is that by being sexist you are not taking away from feminism or changing feminism, you just not being a feminist. So Sarah Palin basically hates women as much as any other republican does, that is her actively NOT being a feminist, it doesn’t matter how much she calls herself a feminist, if she isn’t ‘pushing the movement forward’ then she isn’t being a feminist so feminism is unaffected. There is an argument to be made that some young people may be confused about what feminism is because of this, but this could not possibly last long because Palin doesn’t do many things that could be confused with feminism. I don’t believe anyone can truly hurt the cause from the inside, feminism is always going to be about gender equality and people are going to move towards this together no matter who they are if they push feminist concerns. I might agree that are institutions are too entrenched in patriarchal tradition and this bleeds into feminist groups and forums but it is not an inherent problem to feminism itself is what I’m saying, and we are infighting and every day I see someone who refuses to call themselves a feminist because they’ve seen the status quo leak through and thought it was a new poison invented by feminists but it’s just not true.

I don’t actually know that much about Sarah Palin other than that she wrestled a bear or something. So does SHE say that she is a feminist, or do other people say that she is a feminist? If it’s other people, then I guess they’re just wrong in assumed that a women in a suit with a gun is a feminist. But if she says it then it’s quite interesting.

Okay right here in this paragraph I was writing stuff and then realised that I everything I was writing was basically what you’d answered above, so yeh. I had a really nice conversation with myself.

But yeh, basically I think you answered the question I had which was whether it could be damaging for feminists to reject someone who says their a feminist, but like you say, no matter what she calls herself, he actions are what shows people who or what she is; so that situation is kind of moot.