ironically, one realizes how alike men and women really are in these examples of powerful women not automatically taking the "feminist" argument. it's always about self-interest first, not some unselfish, greater good.
i always greatly, greatly resent the notion that just because somebody is a woman, and i'm a woman, i should automatically jump on her side, take up her banner. i don't and, as penny says below, i would rather look up to a feminist man than sarah palin. or many other women in power who are just as despicable as any other human. genitalia alone doesn't earn my loyalty to somebody's point of view.
the whole idea of female-only womyn's worlds utopia is so reactionary and without fact. a quick review of history through the ages reveals that women who've had power quickly became as greedy, insane and despotic as any other man in the same situation.
@msAnthrope: And the expectation that as women we would simply support any and all other women is insulting. We can think for ourselves, and our fight is about more than what's between your legs. Just because critics like to dumb it down to just being about that, doesn't mean that it is. #ariellevy
"calm concern for how women [are] faring in the world."
i take issue with the phrasing of "calm concern". it seems to imply that getting angry or riled up (showing crazy female emotions) at gender inequality is somehow bad.
anyone else feel like this is very subtle pandering? it calls to mind a kind of passivity that makes me uncomfortable. #ariellevy
@lolabee: The idea that the only good argument is one that is delivered dispassionately and calmly is a very privileged one, because it assumes we can all operate from this place where things like "rights" and "justice" and "liberation" are abstractions that can be bandied about as points in a rhetoric match without realizing that actual people with actual lives and actual suffering are at stake. And really, the only people who CAN operate from such a place are those who are not dealing with oppression and injustice.
It's a standard that pretty much invalidates any argument made by a person of color against racism, by a woman against sexism, by a gay man or woman against homophobia, etc. Of course it's going to be hard for us to be calm and dispassionate about this stuff - it's our lives! Yet there are all too many who would use that as evidence that we are unreliable witnesses in our own defense, that we lack "objectivity" about the world, and therefore we are too be dismissed as hysterical, emotional, uppity, whatever.
Movements for womyn's lands and political lesbianism implied that there was something special and good about being a woman,
This is a vastly revisionist statement. Sure some movements thought this; but others would articulate the goal as destabilizing traditional family arrangements.
I mean, Levy is writing in support of radicalism here; it's weird to claim that this is actually a critique of radical women's movements. #ariellevy
@PilgrimSoul: Sure some movements thought this; but others would articulate the goal as destabilizing traditional family arrangements.
This is a fair point. I do want to be clear that my thoughts about womyn's lands/political lesbiansim aren't meant as an extension of Levy's argument; they're my own. And there were definitely lots of reasons behind both these movements that weren't about women's exceptionalism (protest against rape and domestic violence, for one). And I don't mean to say that feminists brought arguments like Sanchez's on themselves. BUT I do think that arguments about exceptionalism have existed and do exist on both the right and left, and that they can create problems for feminism. #ariellevy
@Anna N.: Yeah, but I think when you look at these movements they usually articulate their objection to men in far more qualified terms than the media gives them credit for. So this is one of those things where I'm not sure as a matter of historical record we can make this claim.
I mean, I'm always accused of believing in female exceptionalism, because I think women are human. Riddle me that one. :) #ariellevy
Women have equal representation. Don’t you know that most members of the male majority in government have wives? What are you even talking about, woman? I object! Object! OBJECT! OBJECT! #ariellevy
I was actually disappointed by the number of women I heard saying that Palin running was a "good" thing for feminism because it would give girls someone...anyone, to look up to.
I don't want my (yet to be born, but whatever) girls looking up to a woman who has both thumbs on women's/human rights. I would rather they look up to a feminist man.
Women don't own feminism. I don't want to count on my sex to make all of the changes I want to see in the world, I expect it from everyone. #ariellevy
@Penny: "Women don't own feminism" is the perfect way of saying something I've been trying to explain to my male friends for years. Thank you! #ariellevy
@Penny: Absolutely. Young women should look up to politicians and public figures whose work has benefited and is benefiting both women and the world.
We shouldn't encourage our children to support women just because they happen to be women, though I think it's a good opportunity for a lesson: "See, Kiddo, this woman is doing a really cool thing--running for office--and we can admire that without voting in favor of policies we disagree with." #ariellevy
agreed. relegating feminism to a niche audience of like-minded females robs it of its larger message~~ equality for all. even those humans we might not personally like! *cough* sarah palin *cough* #ariellevy
@Penny: This was exactly what went over my (very conservative) father and uncle's heads when I responded to their suggestion that being a feminist meant that I should support Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama. They couldn't seem to grasp that the most feminist choice was to vote for the candidate with the most woman-friendly and equality-based policies, regardless of the candidate's gender. Which doesn't seem like such a challenging concept, but I guess it is for them and their ilk. #ariellevy
Certain male politicians have done great things for women, and certain female politicians are ready to send us back to the stone age. It really should be about the issues. This whole idea that women vote for women and minorities vote for minorities trivializes the views and issues affecting both. VOTE ON ISSUES. #ariellevy
@ErinLovesYou: That pretty much sums up the ridiculousness of this whole "support Sarah Palin because she has a vajay" argument right there. #ariellevy
Well there were identity politics in last 8 years too but it was focused on getting old white dude cronies into power but not on what they should do when they get there. #ariellevy
Excuse me, but I thought feminism would allow all people to make their own decisions. There's no reason to believe that once women are made equal citizens (the ERA is once again on the House agenda) that politics will be any less messy than it ever was. #ariellevy
Unfortunately, I don't think we can really count on the end-game of equal representation without more female representation now. To that end, it is not without means. #ariellevy
@Penny: True but I wouldn't vote for a jew if I disagreed with his politics, nor a gay man. What we need to do is make it so that the woman running are the obvious choice to vote for because they are better then the other candidates. At this point it won't even be that hard. #ariellevy
@FotoVerite: I'm not saying vote for women because they are women, just saying that a more diverse government will benefit marginalized groups. In the end. #ariellevy
@Penny: I'm speaking from my experience of writing so many newspaper stories about government staffs that may have ethnic and gender diversity BUT they still mishandled funds, mismanaged the actions of elected officials, and delivered empty promises to citizens just like so many other governments. #ariellevy
@Cam/ron: You know I take a government of all white old christian straight men forever if they would govern with decency and respect for us all. Right now nobody seems to be. #ariellevy
@Cam/ron: I'd be happy if government (and to a greater degree, business) thought beyond tomorrow. It's not enough to maintain the status quo, no matter how well that is done. It is human nature to improve, and it is our obligation to our own species and the rest of the inhabitants of the globe, to maintain a cycle of improvement that satisfies that end.
I'm really confused about the Santhi Soundarajan case. If she is insensitive to testosterone how would she have a demonstrable advantage over other women? Is the Y a chromosomal advantage on it's own that would make her naturally better at running than her female competitors? Furthermore why is a genetic advantage in a woman unfair while a genetic advantage in a man (I say Michael Phelps must have some fish DNA, test him for that!) is accepted? Aren't all athletes genetically advantaged over regular human beings? Let's stop them from competing because it's unfair to us normal humans who will never be able to run/swim that fast or jump that high!
THis is so infuriating. There is no chance that these same women would be tested if they weren't as good as they are, so it really has nothing to do with their supposed 'manly' looks. It has to do completely with them being considered too good to be women.
Therefore, in response, I demand a genetic test of Usain Bolt to prove he doesn't have ladyparts. I chose to believe his awesomeness is because he's a girl. Michael Phelps, too.
@JerkoftheMonth: that makes no sense, though. Men outperform women uniformly in these events, and so a woman pretending to be a man would be handicapping themselves in terms of competition.
Moreover, of course this is about performance, not appearance. Why should the other competitors care if a male-looking "female" is competiting but failing? You only care about people cheating when they win, for the same reason. If they're losing, they're not hurting anyone.
11/09/09
Zing! #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
i always greatly, greatly resent the notion that just because somebody is a woman, and i'm a woman, i should automatically jump on her side, take up her banner. i don't and, as penny says below, i would rather look up to a feminist man than sarah palin. or many other women in power who are just as despicable as any other human. genitalia alone doesn't earn my loyalty to somebody's point of view.
the whole idea of female-only womyn's worlds utopia is so reactionary and without fact. a quick review of history through the ages reveals that women who've had power quickly became as greedy, insane and despotic as any other man in the same situation.
it's a human condition. #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
i take issue with the phrasing of "calm concern". it seems to imply that getting angry or riled up (showing crazy female emotions) at gender inequality is somehow bad.
anyone else feel like this is very subtle pandering? it calls to mind a kind of passivity that makes me uncomfortable. #ariellevy
11/09/09
It's a standard that pretty much invalidates any argument made by a person of color against racism, by a woman against sexism, by a gay man or woman against homophobia, etc. Of course it's going to be hard for us to be calm and dispassionate about this stuff - it's our lives! Yet there are all too many who would use that as evidence that we are unreliable witnesses in our own defense, that we lack "objectivity" about the world, and therefore we are too be dismissed as hysterical, emotional, uppity, whatever.
Basically, it's bullshit. #ariellevy
11/09/09
This is a vastly revisionist statement. Sure some movements thought this; but others would articulate the goal as destabilizing traditional family arrangements.
I mean, Levy is writing in support of radicalism here; it's weird to claim that this is actually a critique of radical women's movements. #ariellevy
11/09/09
This is a fair point. I do want to be clear that my thoughts about womyn's lands/political lesbiansim aren't meant as an extension of Levy's argument; they're my own. And there were definitely lots of reasons behind both these movements that weren't about women's exceptionalism (protest against rape and domestic violence, for one). And I don't mean to say that feminists brought arguments like Sanchez's on themselves. BUT I do think that arguments about exceptionalism have existed and do exist on both the right and left, and that they can create problems for feminism. #ariellevy
11/09/09
I mean, I'm always accused of believing in female exceptionalism, because I think women are human. Riddle me that one. :) #ariellevy
11/09/09
This is so well put. I'm gonna put it in my toolbox and pull it out when my mom starts in with the palin-love. #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
I don't want my (yet to be born, but whatever) girls looking up to a woman who has both thumbs on women's/human rights. I would rather they look up to a feminist man.
Women don't own feminism. I don't want to count on my sex to make all of the changes I want to see in the world, I expect it from everyone. #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
We shouldn't encourage our children to support women just because they happen to be women, though I think it's a good opportunity for a lesson: "See, Kiddo, this woman is doing a really cool thing--running for office--and we can admire that without voting in favor of policies we disagree with." #ariellevy
11/09/09
One day hopefully everyone will simply be a humanist.
*I apologize if there are things that are part of the humanist manifesto that would counteract the sentiment* #ariellevy
11/09/09
agreed. relegating feminism to a niche audience of like-minded females robs it of its larger message~~ equality for all. even those humans we might not personally like! *cough* sarah palin *cough* #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
I don't recognise any of Sarah Palin's politics in this sentence. #ariellevy
11/09/09
oh but you see, it's her own personal politics~~it's how she's faring in the world. that's her concern. #ariellevy
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Therefore, in response, I demand a genetic test of Usain Bolt to prove he doesn't have ladyparts. I chose to believe his awesomeness is because he's a girl. Michael Phelps, too.
09/02/09
Moreover, of course this is about performance, not appearance. Why should the other competitors care if a male-looking "female" is competiting but failing? You only care about people cheating when they win, for the same reason. If they're losing, they're not hurting anyone.