Thanks, but no thanks, ‘sister’
March 19, 2009
F
I recently read two very interesting articles. First article wonders why today’s women are feeling utterly useless and provides several insights I thought were interesting. It seems despite having a flourishing career, a doting husband and cute-as-hell kids, and being a well-traveled jet-setter, women still feel unworthy and can’t help but compare themselves with other similarly successful women. It appears “having it all” is no longer enough to keep a woman happy.
The second article is excellent. I love an honest feminist and Zoe Lewis is exactly that. She bravely admits that she “should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking”. I’m sure her article has earned the ire of fellow feminists everywhere, which is a shame really because they are missing out on an important realization: “I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams – to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.” God, the raw honesty! Doesn’t it make you wanna bake her a cake or something?
Reading these two articles made me realize two things:
1. Women can’t be friends under capitalism.
It appears that women are quite the obedient little capitalists: “You want it all, you can have it all!” Who cares about sisterhood and solidarity when there are better things on offer… like shoes, gossip mags, rampant rabbits that lasts all night long unlike men, chick flicks, clothes-induced credit card debt and a new hair style to compliment it, and CHOCOLATE! You go, girl! The world is completely yours for the taking…
It’s tragic. There’s no neutrality. No real affection. No real sisterhood. You either bitch about other women or you fuck them. And what’s worse is the constant judgment… What is she wearing? She’s a total slut! She doesn’t deserve that promotion even if she’s totally qualified! Stop talking to my boyfriend! Who does she think she is?… and my personal favourite is from the movie ‘Spanglish’, when Tea Leoni says to her new Spanish maid “You are GORGEOUS!”, her mother adds, “She didn’t mean that as a compliment, she meant it as an accusation.” It’s never-ending and it’s everywhere.
2. Apart from a vagina, women of colour feminists don’t have anything in common with white feminists.
I don’t particularly care for white feminists. What they have on offer is nothing more than a feminist-brand that’s predominantly consumed by white women… and women of colour who have forgotten the colour they were born with. Thanks, but no thank, ‘sister’. White Feminism is devoid of any real substance precisely because its ideology is essentially capitalist, and therefore patriarchal. It gives the illusion of choice to its consumer, but there is no real choice available. This point is a recurring theme in the coffee-bland neurosis that is Sex & the City. Through out the series we see Carrie’s perpetual indecision regarding shoes (“Should I buy this shoe or that one…they are both nice…) and the men in her life (“Is he the one?”). And Samantha’s depart from men into the arms of her lesbian lover is described as “It’s like ten dicks!” … Yes, you can indeed have it all because you are, uh, worth it, but it’s better to be in the anxiety of choice than to actually choose.
In the meantime, while we wait for white feminists to make up their mind, sisterhood meets its demise and the lack of solidarity further divides common interests and weakens the unity of all women, whatever the colour and religion. And on a radio somewhere Katie Perry sings a lyrics heavy with accusation: You change your mind/Like a girl changes clothes/Yeah you, PMS/Like a bitch/I would know/Cause you’re hot then you’re cold/You’re yes then you’re no/You’re in then you’re out/You’re up then you’re down/You’re wrong when it’s right/It’s black and it’s white/We fight, we break up/We kiss, we make up…
F
Sahar
Farah
March 19, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Welcome back. Excellent.
March 24, 2009 at 5:32 am
Hey Jarrar. Thanks. It’s good to be back.
March 19, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Hi,
Not so sure about the second article being all that excellent. But that’s just my opinion. This line by the writer just killed it for me:
“I thought that men would love independent, strong women, but (in general) they don’t appear to. Men are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It’s not their fault – it’s in the genes.”
Feminism is about everybody – men and women. But many men don’t want to make it easier for women to balance out their careers and family. For example, many actually think being a stay at home dad is emasculating:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/27/family-nickclegg
I’m not saying that ALL fathers should give up their jobs, but view it as an option of equal worth instead of a death sentence.
March 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Well… I guess this Zoe Lewis is a little old school. I liked her honesty, but I also am a bit sick of women who mainly blame ‘feminism’ for their life choices. I’ve had this discussion with an acquaintance of mine who has had a good career and children late (nearly too late) and she blamed feminism for it, when she liked being trashed and trendy in the 80s and 90s.
I don’t see why there is feminism (which has been reduced to having a successful career, no?) on one side and “love, children and baking” on the other. Feminism to me is about choices, for men and women. This means that if a man in a straight couple would like to take on a more of a “love, children and baking role”, well good on him. It’s about having some flexibility and not fixing gender roles. This also means if a woman wants to stay at home with children and bake or whatever, she shouldn’t be looked down on. Feminists who judge other women for being “domestic” make me mad. Feminism does not have to be about earning lots of cash/having a big career although of course, some women do define it that way.
Plus, I’ll have to concur with cycad above… I don’t know if mean are hardwired to love “soft and feminine.” What does that mean anyway? You can be independent and ambitious and very appealing to men, if that’s what you want. It seemed like Lewis was appealing to men, but didn’t actually want a deep relationship…
Finally, although white feminisims (note the plural) have perpetuated a huge amount of crap, I think that you’re also simplifying what “white feminism” is. You seem to have defined it as 1. a unitary thing and 2. as sex in the city, which does do a disservice to a whole lot of women working to improve this world, in ways that don’t involve rampant consumerism and meaningless comparisons.
March 24, 2009 at 5:26 am
Brynn, thanks for the comment.
Two things:
1. Sure, feminism is about choice but certain choices aren’t acknowledged by white feminists. Eg: the choice to become a housewife or wear hijab/burka or become a co-wife or to remain a virgin aren’t acknowledged at all. Instead, white feminists insist on defining what feminism is to women of colour. White feminists insist that it’s their feminist duty to save women of colour. This is what I, as a brown woman, resent. (Mind you, there are white women who are true allies. They see us as empowered individuals and don’t start to asphyxiate the minute they see one of us wearing a hijab. They actually shut up for more than a second and listen to what we’ve got to say. Now those I call sisters).
2. I personally believe that it is in the genes.
March 26, 2009 at 9:17 am
Thanks for your comments Faz. I think that it might be worth spending time on defining what you mean by white feminism does seem to be causing some confusion.
Secondly, I do think there are differences that are genetic between men and women – there is a reason the Olympic 100m isn’t a mixed running race. I strongly maintain that these differences need to be dealt with carefully, and that socialisation matters, too. For example, to say that the fastest man can run faster than the fastest women over 100m doesn’t mean a lot of women can’t beat quite a few men at this task, so to generalise out and say ooh men are the best at spatial reasoning full stop (for example), is something one should be wary of. Of course differences may be usefully dealt with with perhaps some tailored formes of teaching, but again, this needs to be wisely and sensibly applied.
The NARTH argument you linked to, that men are naturally more dominant outside the family and have been in all societies throughout history, can lend itself to supporting arguments about women’s “proper place” and inferiority, which is why I have urged caution, quite repetitiously, I fear.
Last point: I have a huge problem with you using NARTH as a source since they are basically some sort of organization to convince gay people that they’re wrong, and that who they are can be unlearned — all wrapped up in a bit of scientific language and pseudo-caring. Yes, there will be times when there are people who do not know who they are and need support and understanding, but I wouldn’t send them to NARTH.
March 22, 2009 at 1:27 am
Cycads, I don’t think i’ve ever read an article where I agree with every point that is made. Lewis made some valid points about the implication of the type of feminism she was brought up in. That was really her focus.
Which brings me to Brynn’s point about feminismS. The 60s and 70s was a feminism of equality and founded in an ethnocentric perception of what that equality mean. This later made away for difference feminism. I include the recognition of gender differences within this feminism which I think Lewis was not really exposed to, but has increasingly been recognised.
Brynn, I think there is to a degree an image that feminism generally upholds in which what it means to be liberated, successful and so on comes in a type of form. Even today, prioritising your family over your career is considered in negative terms and does not fit into the image of ’success’ and ‘independence’ and ‘liberation’. In this regard, the 60s and 70s feminism haunts feminists today.
March 25, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I really disagree with the idea that there is a “white” feminism is different to the feminism of “women of colour”. Firstly it groups all women of European heritage in one category and all women who are not of European heritage in another. I don’t think this binary works. For me as a women of Muslim and Indian decent and 4th generation westerner my “white” feminism and “coloured” feminism are hard to distinquish. In fact many of my “white” friends share the same values that F describes as being “coloured” values. And on a tangent, after spending three months in South Africa the use of the words “white” and “coloured” to distinquish people is really frustrating because I’ve seen first hand the damage it does to society.