#like we're heading for a modern feminist 'women can do anything men can and STILL BE WOMEN! :)' thing

[tyrannuspitch]

i'm reading this historical novel with a third gender character and like. i don't know how to feel about it. because obviously gender is personal and contextual and they will be operating within their own society's rules. but i feel like the author is keeping things so just-within-the-rules that it almost becomes like... a weird reluctance to engage with actual queerness? only with alternative norms? almost like. inventing new ways to be cis and then doing cisnormativity with them lmao

#so the character was raised a boy but (their words) 'has a woman's body' #they seem to always choose male presentation/roles when they have the choice #but they didn't decide to be raised that way. it was just Their Destiny. #and it's not clear that maleness means much to them besides familiarity and social power #and uh. they're attracted to men and they always identify that as a female feeling #and like the direction we're going in seems to be romance 'reconciling' them with their femaleness :// #(this being a character who has been correctively raped as well.) #(and the men who are attracted to them are never ever treated as queer and only feel attraction once they 'know') #and it's just like. idk. it's a plausible situation but it also feels... unimaginative. limited. ? #like we're heading for a modern feminist 'women can do anything men can and STILL BE WOMEN! :)' thing #and like EVERY part of their identity is justified by being an outside force and not a choice #bleh #this character is inuit. they've also been interacting with norsemen. #one of the norsemen made one derogatory reference once to m/m sex and other than that it's been radio silence #the MC's male presentation has almost always been backed up by 'the gods wanted this' or 'it's just safer' or similar #there was some joy in breaking the rules in the middle of the book but it seems to have faded away #idk. it's interesting but it doesn't feel like the character is actually being treated as a) third gender or b) male #just as a Spirited Woman #the author's note and the blurb both use she/her exclusively. :/ #oh AND bc there are norse characters we've also been talking about loki as genderweird and guess what #he/him exclusively except when in a female 'diguise'. :(

[tozettastone]

Just on the topic of radical feminism— (heads up that there's some transphobic stuff discussed below, although not in much detail)

I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that radical feminism did have its era. I know we deride it a lot online now and we have some good reasons for that. And I also do think it isn't really the right tool for approaching the evolving gender landscape of modern life. Radical feminism views all oppression of women as a result of gender relations between men and women (who are binary opposites) specifically. Today, a lot of highly educated people who think deeply about sex and gender have stopped treating gender as, like, "these are the unalterable facts about our bodies and they have a specific, inalienable social and biological meaning," which makes radical feminism just kind of... less useful to us. A school of thought that wants gender as an entire concept to be dismembered and served up on the good silverware can't really make use of a framework that's grounded in gender binary.

But I still think it's worth knowing about radical feminism.

I just think we kind of need to understand where we as feminists have been if we want to understand why we're here. Radical feminism did, in fact, have its era. Once you start thinking about it in its context, it's absolutely no coincidence that it emerged as a force in a froth of rage during the post-war years in the west—when the menfolk came back from war and the women were so condescendingly ushered right back into the home. It's worth reading your Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin and Carol Hanisch (and, yeah, even the most loudly hostile transphobes like Sheila Jeffreys or the off-the-wall spite of Valerie Solanas, yes, sorry), and it's worth thinking about the absolute rage that informs, well, pretty much anything Sylvia Plath wrote (although I don't think she'd ever have called herself a radical feminist, if she'd lived that long—she's furious about the same things, though). All that stuff from the 50s (or late 40s, if we count de Beauvoir's The Second Sex) and 60s and 80s is useful and educational, if the people around you read you as a woman when you walk around on the street. It's worth reading and knowing where words like 'patriarchy,' and phrases like 'male supremacy,' and 'the personal is political,' are coming from.

And, anyway, reading something doesn't mean you should treat it as an authority. Obviously I don't think you should read Jeffreys and come away agreeing with her that "sex reassignment is mutilation," because I personally think that's incorrect (because... see my point above about dismembering gender). But maybe you shouldn't take my, or anyone else's, word for it? Maybe you should read and find out how she arrives at that idea and figure out what you think about that? If you come away thinking she's wrong, you'll be able to explain to yourself, clearly and with high quality critical thinking, exactly why. And if you read a bunch of radical feminist stuff and come out going "all this was a massive distraction from a more significant axis of oppression—which affects all women anyway—which is CLASS," or something, that's a reasonable criticism that you can probably support. I know people who think that, too.

I guess I just sincerely believe that we really only get to know one little tiny bit of reality from one single point of view at a time. So each new piece of information can form part of the lens through which to view reality. And to me it's just so much more useful to understand radical feminism as a deeply necessary, if now outdated, era of feminist thought than it is to howl "RADFEM RHETORIC," and not actually know what you mean by that.

Anyway if you got to the end of this and you're like, "yeah, maybe I should read more historically significant theories, but I simply lack the will and energy," then. Understandable. Have a nice day. LOL.

#tozette.txt #feminism #i haven't expressed this super clearly sry #maybe I will edit it to be clearer later #I'm just thinking about how much I benefited from reading stuff like this in uni #even though I don't actually agree with that much of it as an older adult

[lizziestudieshistory]

Mary Wollstonecraft and THAT monstrosity of a "commemoration"

Firstly, I love Mary Wollstonecraft, if you believe in feminism, gender equality or whatever else you what to call it - go and read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. It's still powerful today and you can probably find a copy for free. She's also Mary Shelley's mother if you didn't know!

Anyway, Wollstonecraft has been systematically obscured from the records of history for centuries due to a patriarchal and sexist smear campaign against her after her death. So it was decided 10 years ago that we should crowd fund a statue to celebrate Mary Wollstonecraft HERSELF. And the herself is important.

In 2018 two statues were presented for the public to vote on, one by a man (how hideous, apparently, for this feminist icon - heads up that statue whilst boring was suitable and actually understood the brief) and one by a woman. After the vote, the statue by Maggi Hambling was chosen, personally I hate her work but fine. Hambling was commissioned to start work.

Fast forward to today and we have this revealed...

(Sorry for the screenshot, phone wouldn't download the actual image 🤷‍♀️ click on the link for a better image and the one above that for the two concepts for the statue)

And there is SO MUCH wrong with it:

This statue, commissioned and crowd funded to commemorate MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT herself, is supposed to represent an 'everywoman'. And outdated, controversial, and frankly boring concept in art designed to represent all women through a usually cis, white, thin, conventionally beautiful, etc. woman. How is this fulfilling the brief of a statue to commemorate Wollstonecraft and her contributionto feminist literature?

Why is she naked? On the whole I don't really care if your particular style of feminism likes for nudity or not - I'm not fond of it myself, but you do you and I respect your right to choose. HOWEVER, it's not appropriate to celebrate the 'mother of feminism' through the male gaze with a conventionally attractive female body that isn't even her own. Wollstonecraft called for our society to stop objectifying women - so of course it makes perfect sense to have her statue objectify women (and no, just because a woman made it doesn't mean it doesn't pander to the male gaze!)

This is petty and highly subjective, but... It's so fucking ugly! Why did we need a tiny, perfect, silver (yet scowling because empowerment) nude on top of a phallic blob? It's just gross but then I dislike modern art...

My point is... Women are objectified enough by our society. Women aren't given the time of day unless they are young, beautiful, silent, and sexually available for men. A teenager walking past this statue isn't going to think 'wow women are capable of amazing intellectual and rational thought' they're going to think 'wow fucking perky tits'.

It's a disgrace, a waste of time and resources, as well as being highly disrespectful to this amazing intelligent woman! Personally, I think statues like this are a waste of money (do literally anything else to educate people.) But as long as we're still doing them then I hope Wollstonecraft gets one worthy of her. In the mean time read her work, it is still relevant for us today.

EDIT: here's a link to A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for free

#mary wollstonecraft #feminism #modern art #maggi hambling #a vindication of the rights of woman #feminist thought #i didn’t proof read again