A Discussion On Feminist Blogs

Betsy Woodruff blogged an open letter to the Feminist Movement that has my head and heart reeling.

She asks some really good questions and here are my thoughts:

My first thought about the open letter was that the message is too easy to disregard because most feminists can say, “well my belief system is more complicated then that.” She has not captured the reality of feminism’s diversity. Yet, parts moved me. A few comments echoed. Although I don’t think that these issues are mutually exclusive – I can write about, act out for both the developed and developing world issues. However when the majority of self-labeled “feminist” blog entries (mine included) have more to do with developed world problems then we may be misusing some of our political capital.

On the Feminist Movement as an audience: Betsy, I do not know who your audience is.

I rely heavily on bell hooks as gateway to feminist thought with ideas like this:

We resist hegemonic dominance of feminist thought by insisting that it is a theory in the making, that we [feminists] must necessarily criticize, question, re-examine, and explore new possibilities.

-bell hooks 1984

Betsy writes:

You also complain a lot about American Apparel, and I don’t totally get it. After all, if you’re such a fan of complete sexual liberation, shouldn’t you be happy that college-aged women feel liberated enough to pose in unitard-thongs?

To speak of the Feminism Movement as a single entity (and then call out contradictions) makes me uneasy. We are not all the same. Not all feminists support pornography. Those who would attack American Apparel would probably place themselves in that anti-porn category. Both controversies have to do with the objectification of the female body and it seems unlikely that that extreme of internal contradiction would exist in a person. A Sex-Positive Feminist will say yes to both controversies – no contradiction still.

I think I felt moved to write this response because I feel privileged by both whiteness and my leisurely exploration of feminist thought in college to help insist as hooks says that you ought not to cage feminist thought. She is always being rebirthed.

Your issue with the Feminist Movement (though that grouping is problematic to me still ) does strike some kind of a chord for me.

So here’s my beef with you. Regardless of the legitimacy of the battles you’ve chosen, they all seem to pale in comparison to many of the issues that seriously threaten our gender today.

Unfortunately, you’ve also ignored many “third world feminists” who write about the issues you are asking for though their more radical politics and judgments of the system would likely make you unhappy. The Third Wave of feminism introduced a wrench into the overly simplistic, white, middle class understanding of the gender war. These authors and bloggers may not call themselves feminists first because they are focused on a multiplicity of oppressed identities (gender, race, sexual orientation, class) Gloria Anzaldua, Lauryn Hill, Cherrie Moraga, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Trinh T. Minh-ha, and more to explore. Maria Amir. Mainstream women like Sheryl WuDunn (with her husband Nicolas Kristoff wrote the book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide) are writing about the oppression women face around the globe and make cases for how we ought to respond. Ms. Magazine blog also hosts authors who focus on the oppression that face women in the developing world.

While the discussions may not be happening as often as you would like, where you are looking for them; they are happening. You should seek them out. Up the readership. Share the links.

I think that one of the beautiful things about feminism is that it tends to encourage personal politics. “How does patriarchy influence me and what can I do to change that?” Feminists can look to either their vote, career, family, writing focus and/or purchasing decisions as points of power where each individual can weigh their values and act. Perhaps this is the root of your frustration. You ask if the topics facing women of color are “too hard” for developed world women to take on and I ask you to be more understanding. There is little controversy in Genital Mutilation Is Bad and Don’t Throw Acid in Her Face blog posts. The audience largely agrees. Who reading an argument against clitoris mutilation is suddenly going to decide not to enact that cultural violence upon their daughter? The basic information is already out there about the matter so those looking can find it. Your average feminist blogger will likely have no expertise on the issue – how could those discussions be furthered? (below I have an alternative to Western Feminists discussing these issues) Also, I think that those seriously fighting these battles are not writing leisurely about it in blogs. Issues of that severity are being written about by lobbyists, academics, human rights watchdogs, and leaders from those areas who can speak to the cultural identity as an insider. (We should be reading these.) Still, I do sympathize with your critique because Western feminists certainly aren’t powerless (more below).

Do consider though that as popular Western bloggers judge their sphere of influence to be their cultural neighbors they write less often about the spheres (Asia, Africa and the Middle East) they feel are beyond their experience and influence. (Linda Alcoff may argue that these women best spend their time listening to the voices of those from especially oppressed areas but should be especially cautious about crusading for that cause because of how disempowering it can be to speak for others.) My neighbor and I disagree on the degree of harm or benefit Lady Gaga has on feminism and thus I will invest my time in developing an argument tailored for that neighbor. American feminists may feel especially removed from issues like genital mutilation because we do not feel the presence of North African immigrants and trust that the US has legislation to protect daughters within our borders (although we do not protect our sons from mutilation at birth).

I would like to note that Spain has done a splendid job attending to the safety of North African girls in Spain by training police officers about the procedure and actively working to inform communities and families of girls believed to be at risk of the criminal nature of the procedure and the terrible harm that it causes. Fighting ideas with ideas on the ground. Spain has seen huge success with its initiative.

In defense of the popular feminist blogger – may she/he always work at persuading those within her/his sphere. These authors are attacking a systematic oppression that at its worst disciplines through rape and genital mutilation and at its least encourages heels. Still, war is waged against attitudes (as persuasively as can be done). The attitude is dangerous because it is silent, ingrained and no one is safe from its influence. Every child can identify the stereotypes and cannot help but act upon/discipline themselves into/against them: Defining us. Seemingly harmless prejudices become warrants for harsh action (women are too genteel for politics thus no vote, women are better equipped to raise children thus no promotion, women want to seem pure so they say no thus I’ll push harder for sex, she’s pretty and that’s why she has the job). To resist this attitude at all levels is valuable.

A good friend and my sister’s ex made an interesting case to me awhile ago. He’s a brilliant young man but does not have a blog of his own because he believes that his many layers of privilege require that he serve as an avid listener – an addict to the perspectives of oppressed groups. He seeks out those writers so that he can better understand his personal interaction with the system that harms those at the bottom. From there he can make changes.

Perhaps this is the framing we should consider as white, developed world feminists. We benefit from privilege that crushes others and thus have a responsibility to understand more and more how that works. We must listen. We must read. And when we write we ought to focus a bit more on our interactions with class, race and sexual orientation privilege/oppression. Outlining the kinds of cases where acid is thrown at girls is probably less useful than a discussion of how to solve for it and other problems that face women – the products we purchase that may support modern day slavery or the US immigration policies towards trafficked peoples. One is descriptive where description already exists and the other is (hopefully) a more detailed approach to solve for these instances. But let not our pen drop from the issues that still move us.

In agreement with your critique, dear Betsy  – I was the least effective woman alive for the first few months after I realized feminism mattered. A Junior in college, I threw myself into countless huffs and ill-conceived arguments about exclusion/inclusion in language and chivalrous (my reading of the word was: evil) manners. While those battles are valuable I was the least persuasive feminist evar. Betsy, I welcome your words and criticism. If feminists all the Western world over are not persuasive to you then please tell us why. Because you are right. We have “considerable rhetorical skills.” Goddess, help us to use those skills strategically and honestly. Strategically so that our world progresses and honest so that we progress as individuals.

Of the Formulaic

In reading for a response essay, I caught myself falling into the young writer’s trap. We survive a culture of formulas. From the point-an’-click to the 7 habits of highly effective people. From Covergirl advice on how to get the sexiest effect to the Scientific Method applied to cooking. Oh but shoot me if I seem to you to have fallen prey to the myth that good writing has a formula. Yes, the essay I have been asked to critique is written well. Fuck yes, I’d love to have written it. Beautiful flow. Clear and concise with the perfect balance of he said, she said, and I read it to mean these things here. I stopped myself on page 15 of my reading for I noticed myself examining the paragraph I finished reading to unlock its charm. I intended to imprint fashion in my mind so that I could reproduce that quality in my own work. The ideal paragraph. So into the margin I wrote a note to myself, a warning. Alia, you must not! Writing is completely about the adaptation of a complex idea in a clear format that carries the argument. Because each argument is different, unique and nuanced then the format should reflect it.

And so I continue reading, careful to keep myself intact. Damn this grad student for writing such a well written piece together. How I envy.

Why am I compelled to write?… Because the world I create in the writing compensates for what the real world does not give me. By writing I put order in the world, give it a handle so I can grasp it. I write because life does not appease my appetites and anger… To become more intimate with myself and you. To discover myself, to preserve myself, to make myself, to achieve self-autonomy. To dispell the myths that I am a mad prophet or a poor suffering soul. To convince myself that I am worthy and that what I have to say is not a pile of shit… Finally I write because I’m scared of writing, but I’m more scared of not writing.

Wild tongues can’t be tamed, they can only be cut out.

-Gloria Anzaldúa

Good Morning, Baltimore!

I’ve a million and one things to do today but this proclamation must be made. Last semester one of my Rhetoric professors suggested that students in his class should submit their final paper to the ECA (Eastern Communication Association) Undergrad poster session.

I did.

I was accepted.

SO exciting!

Anzaldua and I shall travel together to Baltimore in April to my very first academic conference. Albeit, I haven’t heard the most flattering things about academic conferences… excuses to shack up… bureaucratic… boreaucratic… anti intellectual in that the sharing of ideas and intent to hear those that others have is insincere… However I can’t help but feel all grown up now! Somebody important thought my ideas were worth talking about… or at least worth the glue to paste them to a poster and drag them to Baltimore.

Dear Academic World,

I will not let you down.

Regards,

Alia

Ignorant critique avoided… maybe

I almost wrote a scathing critique in this post about Lisa Flores regarding her essay Creating Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference. I was angry that I didn’t understand the jump she seemingly made from Chicana’s forming their identity and that identity being immediately connected to Third World Women in general. When she had spent so long discussing how important it was for the uniqueness of the material reality to shape a people’s identity it did not make sense that she should assume that all Third World Women working to emancipate themselves from their oppressive cultures would have the same sisterhood. Their materiality is different!

In trying to justify my angry tyraid I discovered her point. It is nestled in an understanding that identity is constructed … redefined in three stages:

- carving out a space withing which they can find their own voice – entails recognizing the labels, definitions

- they begin to turn it into a home where connections to those within their families are made strong

- construct bridges of pathways connecting them with others

-  result: chicana feminist homeland flexible enough to interact with other homelands

I’m sure that ya’ll reading that can figure out which part I forgot and got angry about. But if not, that’s ok cuz ya probably didn’t read the article and I did.  Mexican American women who feel neither Mexican nor American must create a space for themselves to be themselves, yes? For many, yes. Chicana women carve out their space and make it a home by creating what Gloria Anzaldua calls El Mundo Zurdo – the left handers world – the place for the misfits.

Lisa Flores says, “Because they may never have the connections to their biological families that allow them to be whole, Chicana feminists create a home with other Third World feminists…”

What scared me about my misunderstanding is that I almost wrote a fallacious, ignorant blog. Who knows, maybe the way I understand Flores is wrong here too. The perminancy hit me though. I must be more careful. I must ask more questions before I go about yelling (typing loudly) at the internet or in papers.

This paper is rough but I love it because the subject matter is so important. My critique on Gloria Anzaldua’s Speaking in Tongues: Letter to Third World Women Writers marches on through more reading, learning and questioning.

Many other things to write this weekend as well. I am kind of excited.

The Lied About Body

Yes, at four in the morning I sit down to write. Perhaps I shall traverse the lines I have created between my blog and my journal. Self esteem is plagued by termites – insects who one by one eat crevices into the whole of the body. Some of the bugs are people, some of them are circumstances. I hate being in New York while my family is in the hospital. I hate (selfishly) even more that I want to be there but know I wouldn’t really be of any help to my cousins. Uselessness. Thank God he’s getting better.

Beyond that issue which has been harsh, I have been realizing a new dimension to how I am to speak about my body. I am researching for my paper that is to be a media criticism of the depiction of female sexuality in K-Y ads. This research has helped me appreciate the possibilities of discourse about my body. Yet again other feminists, seemingly more oppressed than I, are showing me how I am boxed, misrepresented, de-centered, objectified, stripped of worthwhile agency and silenced. (I secretly call my authenticity into question. When will I realize these things for myself?) In any case, female sexuality has been grossly misunderstood to a point where there is no question in my mind that my sexuality was only an extension of “his.” Damn Freud. I can’t imagine being an upperclass woman at that time. The myth about vaginal orgasm would have me probably at a drs door to be treated as the sick are. And we still deal with it. The Male Gaze and Phallic centered discourse are far from cured. Even PETA is so immersed in the culture that the group badly re-entrenched these ideas in 1990 advertisements – in an attempt to liberate animals it furthered the objectification of women.  But what do sex positive advertisements really look like anyway?

There was another question I have been thinking about…
I remember thinking that I wanted to blog on it because it didn’t have to do with feminism but the question kept reoccurring.

Oh well.

Gloria, Oh Gloria!

Having a terrible emotional war with myself. It’s stupid and selfish. BUT according to Gloria Anzaldua, writing is the most freeing, empowering activity that I can do. In writing I am supposed to be able to reveal to myself aspects of me that I never knew. She writes:

“Why am I so compelled to write? Because the writing saves me from this complacency I fear. Because I have no choice. Because I must keep the spirit of my revolt and myself alive. Because the world I create in the writing compensates for what the real world does not give me. By writing I put order in the world, give it a handle so I can grasp it. … To discover myself, to preserve myself, to make myself, to achieve self-autonomy… To convince myself that I am worthy and that what I have to say is not a pile of shit.”

This passage is great! …and problematic for me too. She isn’t talking to me. This excerpt is from her Letter to the Third World Women Writers. Pretty much not me. So I don’t know where my spirit of revolt is coming from. She also discusses the need to write because others are erasing her. My suffering can’t be compared to the erasure felt by a Chicana lesbian (shame on me for even thinking about comparing our experiences but honestly, how else do you try and connect with a piece?) Also, while I believe I try to write to put order in the world, I often wish to write about things that are academic but not too personal. I’ve no intention of making a diary entry right now about my personal problems… just a little discussion about Anzaldua and rhetorical criticism. I just need order right now.

So this passage serves two purposes. First, it justifies to myself my desire to write while also getting started on the topics I want to write about.

Today I spent some time studying Anzaldua’s Letter and two questions popped into my head. The first question is one of content. I am not sure how to understand her when she asks women to write. The second is one of method as I study her. I feel uncomfortable fashioning a rhetorical criticism on a creative work like this letter.

First Issue: She wants women to write but write what?!  Peppered throughout the letter are the poems of Cherrie Moraga. Really very beautiful words! They seem to function as examples of other third world women writers writing about their experiences without the distance of academic language and form. They are creativity. They also illustrate whichever point Anzaldua (I’m gonna call her Gloria now) is making. For example, she discusses the limitations that “we” feel and transitions into Cherrie’s poem about writing in poverty. So I can gather that when Gloria says “we” should write she is encouraging creative writing.

Here’s my issue with that: I don’t write poetry. Nothing in me says “let’s write a poem.” Instead my brain says “you really should ‘cuz it’s supposed to be what cultured and intellectual people do.” Even though Gloria discusses how hard it is to make yourself write, I think that creative writing is my weakest, weakest, very not strong point. It is a painful and uncreative process for me. So what am I to do? (assuming she thinks that white first world women can also benefit from writing.)

There are other excerpts to look at in this letter and I think that these can save me.

-She quotes Kathy Kendall who talks about what she thinks Audre Lorde wants women to do. “Audre said we need to speak up. Speak loud, speak unsettling things and be dangerous and just fuck, hell, let it out and let everybody hear whether they want to or not.” (pretty cool)

-Gloria also quotes Naomi Littlebear, “Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage.” (a proverb, no?)

-Then there is Luisah Teish’s words to white feminists uttered in hopes of explaining that third world women writers face very different barriers… like starvation.

I would not call these examples of creative prose. They seem to be on the other side of the spectrum. These ladies are revealing the reality of their lives. They are discussing how to take up arms so that against a sea of troubles (roaring) they will not be ended (silenced).

Gloria uses poetry, proverbs, and naked narrative to fashion a super creative letter (I’ll explain why this is a thorn in my side next). She encourages creativity but wants raw experience put inside of it. I am not gonna score high on creativity (Cherrie’s poems… amazing) and I am not sure what my unextreme experiences can offer in narrative or proverb. These seem like big giant statements stemming from big giant oppressed experiences. I just don’t know if what I put together about debate, rhetoric or whatever would be of much worth to her.

Second Issue: For one of my final papers, I want to do a rhetorical criticism on this Letter. But I am so lost! One of my professors has this cool technique that I thought I would try and in using it I discovered how nonlinear her letter seems… especially at the end. The technique is really super simple. Just order the piece in the margins. So next to the first paragraph I wrote “creation of audience.” And in a few other places I partitioned paragraphs off and titled them “characterizes ‘we’” and “problem.” However, by the last page I couldn’t do it anymore.

I can’t explain why this point is follow by that point or why she calls the body a distraction to writing (“the body distracts”) in one place but then valorizes the body in the next paragraph (“listen to the words chanting in your body”). The last bit is like a collection of proverbs with only a general theme. They aren’t too well ordered but they seemed really important to her so she smashed them in all at the end. Getting inside of an author’s head is pretty damn hard but we can try to understand their logical progression. In this letter, I feel like I have to be clairvoyant to write about the progression. I wish she was clearer, concise and traditional.

Don’t worry. I get why she’s illustrating something that the establishment might get a little upset about. The disorder might make you think more. And if she felt like this point should follow that point then what better reason does she need? It just makes it hard to dissect the piece so that I know what’s going on… so that I can critique it! Rhetorical criticisms on creative works are just hard.

At the end of the day, I am going to talk about her construction of the audience. More to come on that later.