Patronising Feminism
|
Charlie Hale is a blogger and activist on Feminism, QUILTBAG/LGBT, BDSM and Polyamory. They can be found over at www.charliehale.net. © Charlie Hale. Content is released under a CC BY-NC-ND license. |
|
What do sex work, housewifery, wearing a hijab, BDSM and wearing make-up all have in common? They are all decisions that - if you talk to a certain kind of feminist - no woman could reasonably make. If they do, obviously they’ve been brainwashed or conditioned by the patriarchy and therefore are not able to properly consent.
It seems egregious to me that anyone calling themselves a feminist would make this sort of argument. Feminism is about agency and empowering people (particularly women and the otherwise less privileged) to make decisions. Part of this is understanding that people aren’t always going to make the same decisions as you would - and discarding their humanity and agency because you don’t like their decision is oppressive.
There is no particular course of action that is empowering, but rather the ability to make a choice. Your pet theories need to play second fiddle to the real lives and lived experiences of real people - if your feminism doesn’t advocate and work to improve everyone’s lives, there’s no reason for it to exist.
Recognising the influence that society has on people is both entirely reasonable and vital to creating a better world - but no one escapes their socialisation. It is not possible for anyone in any society to avoid taking messages and ideas onboard - we simply can’t discard human agency because it’s not “pure” and you definitely can’t just discard the agency of people you don’t like.
This kind of feminism is ingrained with many patriarchal ideas: it suggests that women need to have decisions made for them and that power over their lives should be removed from them. Whether the disempowering force is the patriarchy or well-intentioned feminists, the result is the same: the more privileged dictating and controlling the lives of those less privileged.
With privilege comes, it seems, an immunity to scrutiny: the choices of less privileged are often publically analysed. The lives of single mothers, people on welfare, LGBT people, and so on are seemingly free game: the feminists - normally with a wealth of privileges on other axes - engaging in this are doing exactly the same thing as men do to women.
This form of feminism is oppressive: attempting to replace one system of control with another. It’s possible to get so caught up in theory that you forget that there are real people involved - real people who want to have (or not) relationships, jobs and sex. People who want to live their lives to be fulfilling for them. Feminism should be about empowering them; not abusing privilege in order to patronise and punch downwards.
It seems egregious to me that anyone calling themselves a feminist would make this sort of argument. Feminism is about agency and empowering people (particularly women and the otherwise less privileged) to make decisions. Part of this is understanding that people aren’t always going to make the same decisions as you would - and discarding their humanity and agency because you don’t like their decision is oppressive.
There is no particular course of action that is empowering, but rather the ability to make a choice. Your pet theories need to play second fiddle to the real lives and lived experiences of real people - if your feminism doesn’t advocate and work to improve everyone’s lives, there’s no reason for it to exist.
Recognising the influence that society has on people is both entirely reasonable and vital to creating a better world - but no one escapes their socialisation. It is not possible for anyone in any society to avoid taking messages and ideas onboard - we simply can’t discard human agency because it’s not “pure” and you definitely can’t just discard the agency of people you don’t like.
This kind of feminism is ingrained with many patriarchal ideas: it suggests that women need to have decisions made for them and that power over their lives should be removed from them. Whether the disempowering force is the patriarchy or well-intentioned feminists, the result is the same: the more privileged dictating and controlling the lives of those less privileged.
With privilege comes, it seems, an immunity to scrutiny: the choices of less privileged are often publically analysed. The lives of single mothers, people on welfare, LGBT people, and so on are seemingly free game: the feminists - normally with a wealth of privileges on other axes - engaging in this are doing exactly the same thing as men do to women.
This form of feminism is oppressive: attempting to replace one system of control with another. It’s possible to get so caught up in theory that you forget that there are real people involved - real people who want to have (or not) relationships, jobs and sex. People who want to live their lives to be fulfilling for them. Feminism should be about empowering them; not abusing privilege in order to patronise and punch downwards.
Body PoliticalBy Lucian Clark
|
Lucian Clark is a born and raised South New Jersey queer who is currently working on his Bachelor's in Human Services and plans to work with schools to make them safer places for queer youth. He spends the rest of his time playing with his rats, writing articles, and making a public spectacle out of his queer body and life. Follow him on twitter at @Wolferfly or check out his website genderterror.com. |
|
My body is a political weapon. I’m not talking about just the fact my body is a transgender one either. I am a walking political billboard, by my own choice. I use my body, especially how I dress my body, as a statement every time I go out into public. I am a visibly queer and transgender person. While I dress rather gender non-conforming (since I am a trans male who prefers feminine clothing, heels, and extreme colors), there is something much more eye catching than that.
I wear a hoodie, covered in buttons and patches ranging from simple trans* pride flags to loud exclamations of gender terrorist, the gender binary is a form of hierarchy and oppression, and your silence will not save you. From the moment I walk out the door of my grandmother’s house, I am setting out on the table who and what I am. This simple article of clothing has become an important part of me. I love being visible. I find empowerment in it. Every day is some form of social experiment depending on where I go.
I’ve had several people compliment my hoodie and strike up conversations on queer politics. I have yet to have a negative interaction aside from the dagger stares. Does this mean I do not experience discomfort or fear due to being visibly queer? Not at all. Every time I go somewhere by myself, I risk danger. This is especially true in places such as public bathrooms, when I waltz into a men’s room in heels and booty shorts. I am who I am, and I am bloody proud of it.
Yet, as a white, non-binary, trans male, I am lucky that I get the privilege of being somewhat safer than my trans women friends (and girlfriend) by being visibly queer. Just this morning, my girlfriend was telling me how every day she sees a new article about a trans woman being murdered. She is terrified of being in public despite having no qualms being openly trans* online. She must hide herself for her own safety. It’s not an exaggeration or her over-reacting either, since 53% of anti-queer homicides are trans women.
This means that my girlfriend, who does not want to live her life as a political figure like me, is more likely to be harassed, murdered, and assaulted for being trans* than I am. My girlfriend, who wishes to just live her life as the beautiful woman she is, is more likely to face hardship than a walking queer billboard like me. This is one of the reasons I am a visibly queer person. By using my privilege to help make trans* and queer people more visible.
However, this does not mean we do not need trans women and other queer people, especially people of color to be visible. We need to show the world that we are here, queer, and not going anywhere, that we are stronger than they take us to be. And, we must remember that queer identity intersects with race, gender, and other forms of minority status. We need to remember that, even despite sharing a queer identity, there are those who have their voices silenced even in queer discussions, and we need to be critical of this.
Thus, if you are able, I suggest being visible in any way you can. Whether it is just online, a subtle pin, anything. Of course, personal safety comes first. If you do not feel safe being out, do not do it. We need everyone alive. Our lives are worth too much. However, we need to band together, the more there are, the louder we are. We need to not silence those who are one with us, for we are all queer people. We must be wary of our own privileges inside of our own community. We need to turn this rumble into a full out roar.
I wear a hoodie, covered in buttons and patches ranging from simple trans* pride flags to loud exclamations of gender terrorist, the gender binary is a form of hierarchy and oppression, and your silence will not save you. From the moment I walk out the door of my grandmother’s house, I am setting out on the table who and what I am. This simple article of clothing has become an important part of me. I love being visible. I find empowerment in it. Every day is some form of social experiment depending on where I go.
I’ve had several people compliment my hoodie and strike up conversations on queer politics. I have yet to have a negative interaction aside from the dagger stares. Does this mean I do not experience discomfort or fear due to being visibly queer? Not at all. Every time I go somewhere by myself, I risk danger. This is especially true in places such as public bathrooms, when I waltz into a men’s room in heels and booty shorts. I am who I am, and I am bloody proud of it.
Yet, as a white, non-binary, trans male, I am lucky that I get the privilege of being somewhat safer than my trans women friends (and girlfriend) by being visibly queer. Just this morning, my girlfriend was telling me how every day she sees a new article about a trans woman being murdered. She is terrified of being in public despite having no qualms being openly trans* online. She must hide herself for her own safety. It’s not an exaggeration or her over-reacting either, since 53% of anti-queer homicides are trans women.
This means that my girlfriend, who does not want to live her life as a political figure like me, is more likely to be harassed, murdered, and assaulted for being trans* than I am. My girlfriend, who wishes to just live her life as the beautiful woman she is, is more likely to face hardship than a walking queer billboard like me. This is one of the reasons I am a visibly queer person. By using my privilege to help make trans* and queer people more visible.
However, this does not mean we do not need trans women and other queer people, especially people of color to be visible. We need to show the world that we are here, queer, and not going anywhere, that we are stronger than they take us to be. And, we must remember that queer identity intersects with race, gender, and other forms of minority status. We need to remember that, even despite sharing a queer identity, there are those who have their voices silenced even in queer discussions, and we need to be critical of this.
Thus, if you are able, I suggest being visible in any way you can. Whether it is just online, a subtle pin, anything. Of course, personal safety comes first. If you do not feel safe being out, do not do it. We need everyone alive. Our lives are worth too much. However, we need to band together, the more there are, the louder we are. We need to not silence those who are one with us, for we are all queer people. We must be wary of our own privileges inside of our own community. We need to turn this rumble into a full out roar.
Sporting Bodies
|
Pat runs Gender Splendour, an online project questioning common assumptions about sex, sexuality & gender. A Gender Studies MA student at SOAS (University of London) at the time of writing, Pat is now doing a PhD in Media & Cultural Studies, researching queer feminist porn. Follow them on Twitter at @PJAMacleod. |
|
Sport is one of the most highly gender-policed spheres I can think of. Those deemed ‘men’ and those classed as ‘women’ are segregated for the purpose of competition, due to ideas of supposed equal footing and fair play. Other than some mixed team and doubles events, the only Olympic sport to remain open to all, regardless of gender, is Equestrian. For me, this throws up many issues relating to trans*, intersex and non-binary sex-genders as well as what this says about how society views women, women’s bodies, and women’s sporting performance.
For many years, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) and the International Association for Athletics Federations (IAAF) performed routine ‘gender testing’ on athletes competing in the women's category. These tests have included nude parades, chromosome testing and hormone level assessments – all of which have failed to produce the results that the sporting world had hoped for: some clear-cut distinction between those bodies we call ‘male’ and those we call ‘female’. In fact, it seems that the more we find out about the human body, the fuzzier this line becomes.
To see why segregation based on sex-gender is problematic, we only need to look at reactions to Caster Semenya’s controversial win in the 2009 800m women’s world championships in Berlin. Her performance - along with her appearance, which did not adequately conform to white, Western standards of acceptable femininity - prompted the IAAF to perform a ‘gender verification’ test that revealed “both male and female sexual characteristics” (Daily Telegraph). After much commotion, Semenya was allowed to participate in future competitions, though it is said that the conditions for doing so included undergoing ‘normalising’ (!) hormone therapy.
We can also look to the more recent case of Fallon Fox, the Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter who came out publically as a transwoman in March 2013. Her upcoming fight was postponed, she risked losing her fighting license, and resistance to her participation continues to abound. MMA fighter Matt Mitrione stated that he considered Fox to be a man and described her as a "lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak." Meanwhile UFC fighter Ronda Rousey’s (thankfully more reserved) response, was that she just didn’t think it was fair for Fox to compete against other women.
So, permeating this appalling racism, transphobia and intersex discrimination, we've also got this idea that ‘male’ bodies are simply better than ‘female’ ones in terms of athletic capacity, and in turn, that this has implications for ensuring ‘fair play’. In which case, the first question I have for these people is, what really are ‘male’ and ‘female’ bodies? As I mentioned earlier, there’s no definitive line between the anatomy of those considered male and those classed as female, so why are we trying so hard to maintain this illusory boundary? And moreover, why are we trying so hard to segregate along sex-gender lines when it so obviously isn’t working, as evidenced by Caster Semenya, Fallon Fox, Renee Richards, Foekje Dillema, Santhi Soundarajan and many more?
Secondly, I want to quote Schweinbenz and Cronk here, as I think that they sum up a troubling assertion implied by the sex-gender policing in sport that also relates to ciswomen. They poignantly note that, “no male Olympic athletes have ever had to be part of ‘masculinity control’ testing, because no one had been concerned that a woman would, or could, ever impersonate a man to compete in an athletic competition.” Thus, it’s not just a gender binary; it’s a gender hierarchy.
To sum up, it seems we put far too much emphasis on this thing called gender. Yes, there may be some differences between the average person classed as ‘male’ and the person assigned ‘female’, but there are also pretty stark differences between your ‘talls’ and your ‘shorts’, your heavyweights and your lightweights, and many other axes of differentiation. Why choose sex-gender? Particularly when it’s failing us in so many ways. This sort of gender essentialism results in the exclusion of trans*, intersex and other non-normatively gendered individuals - and more that than, it is reifying in society three key, problematic ideas:
So where to from here? My thoughts on this can be nicely summarised by a brilliant suggestion made by Rayvon Fouché, which I will leave you with now. It may not be easy to implement, but what a fine idea: “This is not to say that sex-based competitions should be eliminated, but if comparative bodies, rather than comparative sexes or genders, were to compete against each other, more interesting and closer competitions would result.” Hear hear!
For many years, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) and the International Association for Athletics Federations (IAAF) performed routine ‘gender testing’ on athletes competing in the women's category. These tests have included nude parades, chromosome testing and hormone level assessments – all of which have failed to produce the results that the sporting world had hoped for: some clear-cut distinction between those bodies we call ‘male’ and those we call ‘female’. In fact, it seems that the more we find out about the human body, the fuzzier this line becomes.
To see why segregation based on sex-gender is problematic, we only need to look at reactions to Caster Semenya’s controversial win in the 2009 800m women’s world championships in Berlin. Her performance - along with her appearance, which did not adequately conform to white, Western standards of acceptable femininity - prompted the IAAF to perform a ‘gender verification’ test that revealed “both male and female sexual characteristics” (Daily Telegraph). After much commotion, Semenya was allowed to participate in future competitions, though it is said that the conditions for doing so included undergoing ‘normalising’ (!) hormone therapy.
We can also look to the more recent case of Fallon Fox, the Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter who came out publically as a transwoman in March 2013. Her upcoming fight was postponed, she risked losing her fighting license, and resistance to her participation continues to abound. MMA fighter Matt Mitrione stated that he considered Fox to be a man and described her as a "lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak." Meanwhile UFC fighter Ronda Rousey’s (thankfully more reserved) response, was that she just didn’t think it was fair for Fox to compete against other women.
So, permeating this appalling racism, transphobia and intersex discrimination, we've also got this idea that ‘male’ bodies are simply better than ‘female’ ones in terms of athletic capacity, and in turn, that this has implications for ensuring ‘fair play’. In which case, the first question I have for these people is, what really are ‘male’ and ‘female’ bodies? As I mentioned earlier, there’s no definitive line between the anatomy of those considered male and those classed as female, so why are we trying so hard to maintain this illusory boundary? And moreover, why are we trying so hard to segregate along sex-gender lines when it so obviously isn’t working, as evidenced by Caster Semenya, Fallon Fox, Renee Richards, Foekje Dillema, Santhi Soundarajan and many more?
Secondly, I want to quote Schweinbenz and Cronk here, as I think that they sum up a troubling assertion implied by the sex-gender policing in sport that also relates to ciswomen. They poignantly note that, “no male Olympic athletes have ever had to be part of ‘masculinity control’ testing, because no one had been concerned that a woman would, or could, ever impersonate a man to compete in an athletic competition.” Thus, it’s not just a gender binary; it’s a gender hierarchy.
To sum up, it seems we put far too much emphasis on this thing called gender. Yes, there may be some differences between the average person classed as ‘male’ and the person assigned ‘female’, but there are also pretty stark differences between your ‘talls’ and your ‘shorts’, your heavyweights and your lightweights, and many other axes of differentiation. Why choose sex-gender? Particularly when it’s failing us in so many ways. This sort of gender essentialism results in the exclusion of trans*, intersex and other non-normatively gendered individuals - and more that than, it is reifying in society three key, problematic ideas:
- That the biggest difference between people is their assigned sex-gender
- That there are only two sex-gender categories in the first place
- And that one is better than the other
So where to from here? My thoughts on this can be nicely summarised by a brilliant suggestion made by Rayvon Fouché, which I will leave you with now. It may not be easy to implement, but what a fine idea: “This is not to say that sex-based competitions should be eliminated, but if comparative bodies, rather than comparative sexes or genders, were to compete against each other, more interesting and closer competitions would result.” Hear hear!