|
|
| Tuesday, November 8, 2005 02:58 PM |
| What is really necessary? |
| by poppy |
Aerenchyma thoughtfully sent me this piece from this week's NYT magazine (note: most links here require registration. If this annoys you, fight the capitalist system, I don't know what else to tell ya). I like Maureen Dowd as a general rule. I find her fiesty, beautifully intelligent, and silly enough that I trust her. And I liked this article, so much so that I checked around for the book it was adapted from; alas, it only came out today. I even wrote to an old friend who was commenting on watching surnames "drop like flies" that it was worth checking out. I did not, after that, think too much about it, perhaps because my life these last few days has not lent itself to my reading a whole lot of opinion pieces. I was surprised this morning that there was an article in salon entitled "Yes, Maureen Dowd is necessary." I got a bit nervous, since the title obviously referenced her work, and that doesn't often bode well.
Let me say this: I have absolutely fucking had it with this feminist backstabbing/backlash bullshit. Had it. Had my fill. I sure can get myself worked up into a lather when I read something that goes up my nose, or that I feel does real damage to "the cause." I do not feel that the article did either. Feminism is a tricky concept (hello, obvious), and it has only gotten trickier the longer it's been around. Quick rundown: there are many different types of feminism, akin to political parties. Each has its own ideology grounded in its world view, i.e. how are we going to make liberty and justice for all a reality. There are the big umbrella categories and the splinter groups, just like any system of thought. The thing is, they don't get along. Like, really don't get along. It infuriates me, but I'm just as bad. If you try to get me involved in a discussion with a liberal feminist, there just might be blood. In my younger days, it very well could be blood from the tampon I threw in his/her face, but I've calmed down considerably. However, nowadays there would just exist the possibility of bloodshed; as I've said, I've calmed down and I also have learned (the hard way in many instances) that it is important to respect other people's viewpoints.
I have not learned, nor do I ever plan to, to suffer those I consider fools. There are topics I avoid with certain people because we do not see eye to eye and any discussion we have does not bring new information to either of us, it just raises the anxiety level, and often the level of (at least my) speaking voice. That said, there are people with whom I disagree vehemently on certain subjects, feminism included, and with whom I can have satisfying and productive conversations that I leave feeling better informed than when I started. The trick, as I see it, is reciprocal respect. Another trick, perhaps, could be understanding that for some questions there are no answers, only ideas that lead to more questions. I believe Dowd's piece(s) to be a lighthearted jab at the soft underbelly of some really fucking sensitive questions. As such, I suppose it is a good thing that people are up in arms, but self-proclaimed feminists getting their panties in a twist over what amounts to, ultimately, bullshit is a waste of energy.
Hi! Look around you! If public feminism is not dead, it is certainly ailing, and we do ourselves no favors by denying that. And, not for nothing, seeing feminism as a being is perhaps not all that useful. I prefer to think of it as a journey, as a (often circuitous) path that leads ever onwards. Conceptualizing feminism as a discrete concept means it either lives or dies. I do not accept this, because if it is a binary state it's pretty dead by all estimations. How do you measure health? How do you measure life? It's called a movement for a reason; there needs to be movement, preferably forward.
Let me be blunt and wear my radicalism on my sleeve. Feminism is not "alive and well" because men and women are not equal. We're not. Under no criteria could anything otherwise be argued. And I truly believe, me, a dyed in the wool card carrying radical feminist, that we never will be, at least not in the way humanity currently exists. This would qualify as one of those questions that does not have an answer, that gives birth to more questions. Speaking of birth, that's a big hurdle to equality right there.
I cannot speak for everyone. That's a lesson I really wish others would learn. If Dowd does not speak to, does not peek at all into, your reality, I have to say first that I'm not sure I believe you, but also that it is not the job of a fluffy writer to speak to plural reality. But while I myself cannot speak to plural reality, I reserve the right to pass judgement, and to pass up the opportunity to participate. I do not know many people who go through their lives without making some compromise, without letting some things slide. I am guilty. I am also guilty (?) of falling prey to a million pressures placed upon my female body on any given day. If I am to be judged, I will return the favor.
Aerenchyma mentioned this morning that Dowd was not speaking to the real issues in women's lives. My reply is that a practical politics is fine, but it is not enough. Praxis is important, but before there is praxis there must be theory. In feminism, as in life, it is the hard and unanswerable questions that often need the most sustained attention, and that attention can come in many guises. Out of that can grow theories that otherwise may have languished as impractical. I myself felt validated in a certain sense by Dowd's piece, because there are times when things are just goofy, just wrong, and in some cases we need to be able to laugh to fully appreciate the absurdity of the situation.
(P.S. I was going to mention Dworkin, but thought better of it. Consider yourselves lucky.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Genzano's books on Goodreads
