Image: Thomas Fisher Rare Books Hi! Thinking of starting up a feminist activist group, gathering or collective in your city/town/village/hamlet? Whether you're setting it up at university or down the pub (I favour the latter - partly because I am not at university, partly because pub) one of the first things you should consider is whether or not you intend this to be women only or not. If you decide it is to be women only you have to decide whether you mean cis-women or people who identify as women. It's only two decisions and yet, and yet. You have to consider the notion of 'safe space', the idea that you might want to be welcoming (I hear people like that stuff) to all or some and what will work for your feminist gathering. The same goes for a feminist book. Is your intended audience women or feminists?
The problem people of any political/theological/philosophical persuasion often find is that they only ever preach to the converted. They unintentionally cocoon themselves in secure surroundings in which everyone agrees with them and then feel quite baffled when an election comes along and the general populace demonstrates that they are at odds with them.
We know that it is this cocooning that kills movements. We see it now with the (high) Church who did not venture out (they didn't learn their lesson from Sister Act. Or Sister Act 2. Brothers and sisters does there need to be a Sister Act 3 before you respond? Because I can see Whoopi and Maggie signing up but not Lauryn Hill). The entire point of gathering with others who share your beliefs or convictions is to work out your preaching strategy.
It seems logical to me that the more diverse your movement the more successful it is going to be, not fractured. The idea is world domination - or uh, people of the world uniting as one. Against something else. Maybe coriander because I hate that plant.
We know that it is this cocooning that kills movements. We see it now with the (high) Church who did not venture out (they didn't learn their lesson from Sister Act. Or Sister Act 2. Brothers and sisters does there need to be a Sister Act 3 before you respond? Because I can see Whoopi and Maggie signing up but not Lauryn Hill). The entire point of gathering with others who share your beliefs or convictions is to work out your preaching strategy.
It seems logical to me that the more diverse your movement the more successful it is going to be, not fractured. The idea is world domination - or uh, people of the world uniting as one. Against something else. Maybe coriander because I hate that plant.
| When men review feminist texts, blogs or blogs made into books for a quick buck on the feminist zeitgeist (we await publisher's rabid interest) and don't immediately dismiss them we should look at what they have to say and what they have misunderstood because they haven't had to deal with such things in order to strengthen our argument. This should be seen as ammunition. | to disqualify Aaronovitch's views for being male is to disqualify the feminist plight |
Instead while demanding equality we use the current societal gender binary model to push people away. There are plenty of reasons (or 5 star Amazon reviews) for feminists to not take on David Aaronovitch's musings on the recent publication of the Vagenda's new book. An invalid reason is that he is a he.
At points Aaronovitch's review does veer into 'not all men' territory, it seems his understanding is that women's magazines to be totally geared towards pleasing men rather than competing with women. I agree with GlossWitch that it is frustrating to read passages such as: "Men don't buy or read these publications and certainly don't insist their wives, daughters, sisters or girl-friends do. The woman is a victim of the magazine that she herself chooses. If these are as damaging as Baxter and Cosslett say they are, then why don't women buy something else?"
However to disqualify Aaronovitch's views for being male is to disqualify the feminist plight, as Kate Maltby writes in the Telegraph: "It perpetuates the one fiction that feminism seeks to dismantle: that gender is destiny."
Space. We have to make space for everyone while allowing all women to lead the feminist debate. And we must remember that the feminist dream is not to simply flip the system, but to trans-freakin-cend it.
Squeamish Kate
At points Aaronovitch's review does veer into 'not all men' territory, it seems his understanding is that women's magazines to be totally geared towards pleasing men rather than competing with women. I agree with GlossWitch that it is frustrating to read passages such as: "Men don't buy or read these publications and certainly don't insist their wives, daughters, sisters or girl-friends do. The woman is a victim of the magazine that she herself chooses. If these are as damaging as Baxter and Cosslett say they are, then why don't women buy something else?"
However to disqualify Aaronovitch's views for being male is to disqualify the feminist plight, as Kate Maltby writes in the Telegraph: "It perpetuates the one fiction that feminism seeks to dismantle: that gender is destiny."
Space. We have to make space for everyone while allowing all women to lead the feminist debate. And we must remember that the feminist dream is not to simply flip the system, but to trans-freakin-cend it.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed
