"Tell me, have you ever grabbed your own face with both hands to check if your eyeball is dangling outside its socket? I have. Feminism doesn’t get any more radical than that."
I dunno, tearing down capitalism, the State, and patriarchy still seem more radical to me than examining your own wounds. The latter is really just the basic human instinct for self-preservation.
In general, I think feminism could stand to be a little bit more about teaching women practical skills, and a little bit less t~h~e~o~r~y! and waiting for people who oppose us to change. But defending that Everyday Sexism piece, even while calling it "far from flawless", really undercuts that message. If defending that piece *isn't* actually the hill you want to die on, don't spend most of your article defending it.
@Blushingflwr See also: "I don't want any drama."
@glitterary I struggled with NSBWATM a lot. I loooove Ozy, but they let a lot of MRAs comment - which, I get, I totally get that you can't set up a blog dedicated to understanding gendered oppression as it relates to men and then only let a teeny portion of the men comment. But damn, it made it so that I was nervous every single time I read the comments.
(Pro-tip: if you try really, really, really hard, you can sometimes get the Internet Archive to show you the old site, before it redirects to GMP.)
So, how do you hold websites that exist first and foremost to get clicks accountable? Because, when Jezebel was publishing Hugo, you could go into the comments and find tons and tons of people pointing out his bad history. Hell, he probably could have published something we all actually agreed with, and he would have still been great clickbait just because people were so pissed off. But then it only fueled the clickbait machine, and Jezebel seemed to publish him more. And then by *not* clicking on his links, and telling people about the shit he'd done, yes, Gawker Media didn't get money from that, but it could also be taken as acquiescence and neutrality instead of a deliberate freeze-out, and didn't help newcomers know what was up.
The dictionaries *should* include the "new" definition (that actually isn't all that new); they're all descriptivist. "Literally" isn't being misused, it is being used differently, and the number of times it has led anyone to be genuinely confused about the speaker's message can be counted on one hand.
You know, it's times like this I wish the Men's Rights movement was about actually organizing around this kind of thing, instead of mostly about sending rape threats on the internet and fighting for the rights of any man ever accused of rape regardless of evidence.
@stonefruit I dunno, but I'm having to do a lot of deep breathing and reminding myself that mental illness is a serious issue to keep from giggling over the absurdity.
And, now, he's tried to kill himself: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/08/porn_professor_hugo_schwyzer_suicide_attempt.php
@Diana I love you so hard for this. I really, really do.
@queenofbithynia How are all those intersectionality reasons not totally relevant to the discussion? Is this like when someone says "why don't some women identify as feminists?" and it turns out they meant "white, straight, middle-class women", and what's not relevant are women who aren't of that mold? Are the only reasons relevant to the discussions the ones you don't see as valid?
I think labels do matter, but not nearly as much as I tend to see feminists think they do. With that label is no guarantee of any actual beliefs, especially if we go with some wishy-washy, "just means you believe in equality" definition. Taylor Swift didn't ID as one, and a huge portion of feminists totally flipped their shit, even though there's no reason to she would be. I mean, I at least understand it when someone who's in charge of a local abortion fund doesn't, even if I think the hostility is harmful. And there doesn't seem to be much consideration that the pressure to identify as a feminist might be a form of straight and white oppression itself.
What's more, there's so much pressure for Taylor Swift to identify as a feminist (though, lord knows, she would only have to come out as a lesbian, and suddenly she'd have legit reasons to not ID that way, but also no longer be feminism's target audience so who cares anyway) but almost no pressure on actual feminist things to use the F word. Maybe there's a connection between how Planned Parenthood doesn't call itself A Feminist Organization, or rape crisis centers and shelters frequently don't call themselves Feminist organizations, and people seeing "feminism" as all the shitty parts of feminism and not the great things? The focus is always on how not-a-feminists are failing feminism, not on how feminism and feminists might be failing others. And there's virtually no talk of the ways in which avoidance of certain hot-button issues might be hurting feminism - I can throw a dead cat and hit a woman whose mother was her primary abuser, or whose father had to fight like hell for joint custody, but obviously any woman for whom that is the case is not a woman we are discussing when we ask the question "why do women not identify as feminist", so luckily, we will not have to change at all.