Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Posts tagged Anti-Feminism

Palin’s all-white "Mama Grizzlies"

If you haven't seen Sarah Palin's latest shrewd attempt to reach out to women...well, here it is.


Transcript available at Shakesville.

The language is taken from a recent speech Palin gave at the Susan B. Anthony List - an anti-choice organization - where she tried (unsuccessfully) to paint herself as the "true" feminist. This ad is just another cynical move to appropriate feminism and feminist rhetoric; somehow Palin believes by shouting "yay women!" over and over again no one will notice that her policies are as anti-woman as they come.

The other telling part of this ad is that there only seems to be one kind of "mama grizzly" Palin is interested in wooing. Check out this letter to The Washington Post.

...In watching Ms. Palin hugging her supporters and handing out flowers, I saw something else. I noticed only one slightly off-white face among the many people she was reaching out to. And Ms. Palin pointedly says that conservative women are "mama grizzlies," more formidable than "pit bulls."

Of the deeply feminine women I know, none of them exclude people of color from her personal embrace.

Shocking, I know.

Related posts: Supporters of Sarah Palin's "feminism" getting desperate
Jessica in WaPo on Sarah Palin's fake feminism

Ladies Against Fetishizing Motherhood

You just can't make this stuff up. The Ladies Against Feminism (for real) co-sponsored a "baby conference" where Michelle Duggar of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting received the "Mother of the Year Award."

As Amanda tweeted, "I fail to see how being physically capable of non-stop pregnancy is the same thing as being the world's best mother...That's like saying the guy who can eat 50 hot dogs in a minute is the world's greatest gourmand." Why is ultimate motherhood simply about having as many babies as possible? And when oh when is the Christian Right going to stop promoting the notion that women's ultimate purpose is incubating?

I also think it's worth noting that the founder of Ladies Against Feminism, Jennifer Chancey thinks women shouldn't vote or hold office. So apparently being a dope mother is also about teaching your children that women don't deserve or need equal rights.

via Shelby Knox.

Tagged with: ,

Supporters of Sarah Palin’s "feminism" getting desperate

Headshot of Sarah Palin

It's been nearly a month since I wrote this piece in The Washington Post about Sarah Palin's fake feminism, and I'm still seeing responses to it - some awesome, some...well, not. I've gotten emails calling me a jealous whore, seen articles desperate to paint anti-choice policies as somehow pro-woman, and read blog posts of conservatives furious that I would dare suggest that not just anyone can call themselves a feminist. (Who cares if she fights against other women's rights?! She's a woman and therefore must be a feminist!)

As fun as it would be to take on all of these responses, it's Kathleen Parker's most recent article - A feminism that spans from Palin to Pelosi - that I find the most interesting, and the most telling.

Like most of the other pieces that criticized my WaPo article, Parker focuses on my take-down of Palin's anti-choice policies - bemoaning the belief that "a pro-life woman can't really be a feminist." I can't say I'm surprised that so many chose to respond with the abortion/feminism debate - it's the most salacious, and certainly the argument that will get the most attention. But it's also pretty goddamn lazy.

Because feminists aren't criticizing Palin and her co-opting ilk (organizations like IWF and writers like Christina Hoff Sommers) simply because of their views on choice.  These faux feminists are called out as such because they fight against women's rights across the board.

Read the rest of the post at JessicaValenti.com.

Tagged with: ,

Quick Hit: Anti-feminist Mailbag

Kid you not, this line was found in a long, eloquent summary of why women are worthless among our favorite hate mail of the day:

Well for one thing from what i have observed most woman are dome.

Enough said.

Once more, with feeling: Sarah Palin is not a feminist

Headshot of Sarah PalinSeriously, y'all - how many times does it have to be said? Sarah Palin is not a feminist. I thought we had covered Palin's gross appropriation of feminism and feminist rhetoric during the election, but media coverage of Palin's recent speech for the anti-choice PAC the Susan B. Anthony List has reignited the debate. (Incidentally, the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked.)

Meghan Daum at the LA Times writes,

"But putting that aside, I feel a duty (a feminist duty, in fact) to say this about Palin's declaration: If she has the guts to call herself a feminist, then she's entitled to be accepted as one."

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone - a racist, a misogynist, etc - could be a feminist just because they identify as such. Ridiculous. Daum's argument also presupposes that it took "guts" for Palin to identify as a feminist, something that's so often maligned in U.S. culture.

Now, there is no doubt that there is a backlash against feminism and the women who identify with the movement - but that backlash is largely confined to feminists who actually espouse and fight for feminist values. Conservative and anti-feminist women who have appropriated the feminist label - like Palin or organizations like the Independent Women's Forum - only benefit from using the word. Because, they claim, they're the "real" feminists. (The "feminists" who want to limit women's reproductive rights, cut funding to VAWA and claim that pay inequity doesn't exist.) These self-proclaimed "feminists" are using the word because they know it has power and because they know it resonates with women. But when it comes to actually implementing policy that's feminist, or fighting for women's rights...well, not so much.

The fabulous Rebecca Traister said it best during the election in her piece on "Zombie Feminism":

The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin's candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.

Exactly. What's truly unsettling is that women like Palin and IWF want to use the feminist label to fight against women's rights! After all, Palin keeps touting herself as a working mom, but she ran on a presidential ticket that supported business' right to discriminate on the basis of gender, that opposed increased funding for SCHIP and that supported cuts to the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, of course, Palin is anti-choice - she even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, and is against emergency contraception. And while I'm sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn't be a litmus test for feminism - I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist - there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women's rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist. And seriously, Palin doesn't even support those women who do decide to keep their pregnancies - remember when she cut funding for a shelter for pregnant teens in Alaska? Explain to me how this is feminist.

However, the clearest indication of how anti-feminist this Palin-as-feminist framing is, is the conservative response actual feminists' criticisms of Palin. "Liberal feminists" (as they're calling us now) don't like Palin because she's attractive and happy, because we're jealous of her sexuality, we hate her because she's a mom, or - my personal favorite - we simply all have "post-abortion syndrome". The fact that these proponents of Palin's brand of "feminism" can't help but fall back on sexist stereotypes about women's political beliefs shows how full of shit this argument is. The proof's in the pudding, folks.

At the end of the day, Palin can call herself a feminist all she likes - shit, I can call myself an astronaut! - there's nothing we can do about that. But we can hold media accountable when they repeat her line of crap - so next time you see an article about how feminist Palin is, try telling them what a real feminist thinks.

Related Posts: Note to mainstream media: Sarah Palin is NOT a feminist
Is Sarah Palin a Feminist? Friday Feminist Fuck NO.
Brian Lehrer Asks, Is Palin a Feminist?
Parsing Palin's empty "feminist" rhetoric
Palin backtracks on being a feminist

Tagged with: ,

The worst article on feminism, ever?

Sad looking child in a dunce-cap sitting in front of a blackboard

I honestly think this may be one of the worst, most ill-informed articles on feminism I've ever read. And that's saying a lot, cause I've read some doozies in my day. So sit back and relax, folks - this one is going to take a while.

When I saw Irina Aleksander's article in The Observer titled "Faminist Theory," I had an optimistic moment where I thought perhaps it was an unfortunately-headlined piece about sexism and food insecurity. Wishful thinking, I know.

Aleksander's basic premise is this: Women don't care about politics anymore, cause now they have babies.

The feminist battleground, with its slogans, marches, and campaigns for reproductive rights, has given way to the playground and the fight for lactation rights, stroller rights, school-system rights, unpasteurized milk rights, charter schools, birthing techniques, nutritional value of bagged lunches and water quality. It is not so much about the Fem as it is about the Fam.

"Women are defining themselves more by their families than they are by themselves," said Pamela Paul, a 39-year-old mother of three in Harlem and author of Parenting Inc. "It's no longer about something as selfish and self-advancing as abortion or the pill."

The recent stories in Time ("The Pill") and Newsweek ("Remember Roe!"), themselves artifacts of another era, feel distant from the mainstream discourse of what we have started to think of as Faminism. "They were sort of like baby boomer stories!" said Ms. Paul. "Most of the stories you read these days about 'women' have to deal with them as mothers. Even the celebrity causes--could you imagine Julia Roberts stomping in Washington for abortion rights?"

First of all, here are some celebrities that "stomped" in Washington for abortion rights: Jennifer Aniston, Alec Baldwin, Cindy Crawford, Kirsten Dunst, Whoopi Goldberg, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Demi Moore, Julianne Moore, among others. And I'll just try to look past the whole "selfish" abortion/birth control line without pulling my hair out. Because the most telling - and infuriating - idea here is that if you're for "the fam," you can't be for "the fem."

Since when is there a disconnect between family and feminism? Who do you think has been fighting for child care, flex time and family leave? And since when is the right to have children not a part of reproductive justice work? Not to mention, when Aleksander draws a line between abortion and having children, she furthers the false notion that there are women who obtain abortions and women who have children, instead of the reality: that women often do both. You can care about choice and babies.

And this is what irks me; if someone is going to write an article about feminism, they should at least have some sense of what these issues are about - which Aleksander clearly doesn't.

Take, for example, the article's accompanying slideshow of celebrity moms, "9 Women Who Prefer Prams to Politics." Each picture features lines about the women's marital status, number of children and the political cause they support - Jennifer Lopez and violence against women in Juárez or Angelina Jolie and the UNHRC, for example. But the title of said slideshow would have us believe that these women's status as mothers has somehow made them politically apathetic - despite the fact that there is no evidence that these celebs have given up on their causes once having children. The assumption is that once women have babies, nothing else in their life matters, certainly not politics.

Aleksander also tries to diminish feminism by mentioning a poorly-attended protest in Union Square (because goodness knows, there haven't been any incredibly successful repro rights actions lately) and writing that feminist media doesn't exist anymore (cough, blogs, cough). Anything to support her theory that women are giving up feminist causes because "they are too busy mopping up crumbs."

Not so shockingly, the article is also devoid of any analysis that goes beyond looking at extremely privileged white, upper-class women; Aleksander seems to think that the only women worth writing about are those whose most imminent concerns are "lactation rights, stroller rights, school-system rights, unpasteurized milk rights, charter schools, birthing techniques, nutritional value of bagged lunches and water quality."

You know, if you want to write an article about the cult of celebrity mommyhood in the press, fine, go for it. But write that article. Don't make stuff up and pretend that you know shit about feminism so that you can pat yourself on the back for writing a ridiculous "trend" piece - especially when it's something that only serves to hurt, not help, women.

Tagged with:

Susannah Breslin: Certifiable Asshole

Susannah Breslin, the writer who called feminism "cultural roadkill" has now taken it upon herself to mock the shit out of a very serious term: trigger warnings. You know, because it's so uncool and passe to care about rape victims.

Her post on True/Slant today begins by calling us folks at Feministing self-victimizing, angry man-haters (*yawn*), setting the tone for this oh-so-expert account of contemporary feminism. What follows is joking banter about Feministing and other blogs' use of trigger warnings with seemingly no knowledge of what they're actually for:

I've noticed as of late a new addition to their bloggy style, which is the inclusion of the phrase, often IN ALL CAPS or TOTALLY BOLDED, which announces incoming SCARY content with a "TRIGGER WARNING." WTF is a "trigger warning"? Yeah, I had to look that one up myself. Thankfully: Google.

According to Yahoo! Answers (which, BTW, is a great place to turn if you're worried that having sex while pregnant could result in a pregnant fetus), a trigger warning is: "A warning placed in the title of an e-mail or post to let possible readers know that the content might trigger (or upset) them." This seems different than the more widely used "spoiler alert," which is used if you've seen a movie that other fanbois haven't, and you want to reveal the ending, but you don't want all your fanbois to freak the fuck out.

After some in-depth research (like, half an hour, maybe?), I was able to conclude that, for whatever reason, the feminists are all over their TRIGGER WARNINGS, applying them like a Southern cook applies Pam cooking spray to an overused nonstick frying pan. It's almost impressive, really. I guess the idea is that blog posts are TOTALLY SCARY, and if you are EASILY UPSET, if you see a TRIGGER WARNING coming, you can look away REALLY FAST, or click elsewhere, so you won't, you know, FREAK THE FUCK OUT.

But what's funny about her "research" is that she happened to not find the second and third google results I came up with when searching, "trigger warning," which are pretty clear explanations about how the language is used for survivors of trauma. I guess she missed these?

Actually, I don't think she missed them at all. My guess is that Breslin knows exactly what trigger warnings are, but was intellectually dishonest about it so she could have the opportunity to make fun of feminists as irrational knee-jerks rather than come clean about trigger warnings' real purpose: to help lessen the pain that sexual assault and trauma victims have gone through.

This is shitty journalism at its best. And I don't know about you, but I'll take being sensitive to survivors over too-cool-for-school feminist bashing any day.

A huge, heartfelt thanks to Shakes for coming to our (and survivors') defense. Jill also has more.

Categories: 116

6 years in anti-feminism

Whether it's conservative women's organizations or straight up hate mail - the folks at Feministing sure to love to post about anti-feminism. Here are some of my favorite anti-feminist posts...

Huge women about to crush tiny running man with her fist of feminist fury
This was actually a photo that accompanied an article about feminism destroying men. (Well, if they're so tiny - how can we help but destroy them?!)

Anti-feminist org wants to "bring back the hope chest" In which Ann and I discuss the bizarreness that was the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute's push to make the 'hope chest' trendy again.

Anti-feminist drinking game!!!

Feminism makes your kids gay. (Says the dude preaching with a toilet seat around his neck.)

The anxious masculinity award in hate mail goes to...

Be careful, you may be attending a Gynoversity!!

Quick Hit: Anti-feminist columnist wins a Pulitzer

Kathleen Parker, who thinks young women hooking up on college campuses are creating a "mental health crisis" and that women in the military should expect to be raped (because "men resent women because they've been forced to pretend that women are equals") has won a Pulitzer prize for commentary. I think I need a drink.

Tagged with: ,

In Today’s Alternative Advice Column, What Lies Behind “Slut”

A while back, Chloe wrote a terrific piece about the gap between increased awareness about unhealthy beauty standards in the media, and the unhealthy messages they're actually internalizing. I think a similar gap exists regarding sexuality; many of us are able to articulate pride in our sexuality or pontificate about sex positivity, but we're still internalizing harmful messages about sexuality and what these messages says about us and our value. We still buy into the Madonna/whore complex. We still believe purity and goodness reside with virginity, and dirtiness and badness reside with sex. We still feel shame about our desires, and feel less and less proud of ourselves as our "number" climbs higher and higher (and I'm not talking about age). Yes, there is a cognitive social gap between our knowledge of our sexuality and our experience of it.

That's nowhere more clear than in this Frisky advice column, entitled "Dear Wendy: Everyone Thinks I'm A Slut." A 21-year-old girl writes in with a relatively common problem for young women to have these days--she's being called a slut.

What insight did our neighborhood advice columnist Wendy have for her? Why, of course, it's her fault for talking about her sexual partners so damn much:

"What I don't understand is why so many people are thinking it's standard practice to share the number of sexual partners they've had with anyone they go out with a few times...I do have to wonder if, under your expressed bravado, you feel a tinge of guilt about some of the choices you've made. It may explain the incessant need you have to share your number with people despite the stigma you feel attached to it."

Ok, I got it. It's not a question of whether or not she's a big ole' slut, but who knows about it. So what does she recommend her advice-seeker do? She really needs to quit her braggin'!

"Quit making a big deal of it -- quit sharing your number with people; quit making your private life public; and quit choosing partners who have big mouths if that's what you're doing -- and you'll find that no one else really cares about your sex life as much as you do."

Hmm. So...it's her fault for not keeping all that sluttiness to herself? I'm not sure I'm buying it. Here's what I would have said:

Dear Sexually Active in Vermont,

Slut. What a word. It simultaneously describes and dominates, classifies and corrodes its subject. Its most basic use is to describe someone who is sexually promiscuous, but it has come to entail so much more these days--worthlessness, dirtiness, even the very state of being a woman.

Who is it used by? It's used by men to justify their insecurity about the power they see in women's sexuality. It's used by women to establish their own superiority over other women. It's used by rich people to hold onto and exercise their privilege. It's used by poor people to grasp at having value in a society that often makes them feel invisible. In other words, it's used by people with an agenda. A self-serving agenda. You know, that thing they're accusing you of having by being such a slutty slut? In the real world, the "dirtiest", "easiest" thing anyone can do is degrade another person by feeding into the social and cultural oppression that already exists against them.

So their intentions aren't exactly "pure", but...are they right? Let me set the record straight, right here, right now, for good: People who call other people "sluts" are always, inherently, insufferably wrong. No matter the sexual history of the person they are addressing. Because people who buy into the concept of a slut- that someone who has more sex is worse than someone who has less sex- are fundamentally, logically, morally, spiritually erroneous. Having sex doesn't make you a bad person. Having sex doesn't make you a bad person. Having sex doesn't make you a bad person. (Yes, I'm going for a Good Will Hunting moment here!) Having sex doesn't make you anything other than a person who has sex. The end. I promise!

In reality, purity is a myth. You are not weaker, or stupider, or less important, for each time you choose to have sex with someone. That's not to say there aren't universal social truths about good and bad behavior that you should be accountable to- there are. But these "positives" and "negatives" don't correspond with numbers of sexual partners- that would be ridiculous and meaningless. They revolve around things like kindness, intelligence, compassion, and wellness. These things matter inside and outside the bedroom. Having sex does not define who you are or what you do in any arena other than your sex life! There is no simple dichotomy where more sex equals bad and less sex equals good. There is only you. Your state of mind, your experiences, your health and well being, your contribution to this world. It is a more complicated, more nuanced, more evolved system of valuing people. Which should tell you right there it is probably right.

But that voice. That voice inside and outside your head is saying "I know what you're saying is right, but deep down inside I don't believe you. Why would the whole world keep telling me I'm worth less because of my sexual history if it weren't even a little bit true?

That is a good question. Why do people call other people sluts? In my experience, I have found that it is because they are scared. They are scared that they won't be able to find a partner that they love who will love them back, and they would like to be able to have someone else to shoulder that terrifying responsibility. They are scared of their own sexual desires, and what those desires say about their true selves. They are scared of living a life based on a value system that will be proven by time to be false, cruel, and unjust, so they work even harder and more ferociously to justify and reinforce it, to prove to themselves that they, their parents, their grandparents, are on the right side of history (they are not). They are scared of women who are free, because it reminds them of the ways that they themselves are not. And of course, they are scared of their own mortality, and so they grasp at anything that could guarantee them immunity, moral superiority, or holy benevolence in the face of the ultimate terror- death.

This fear drives them to great extremes. Fear is powerful, and many people's lives are completely dominated by it. Women, in particular, are an easy target for people who are very scared, because there are already social checks in place to make women less threatening, less powerful, less scary. So they latch onto this, and contribute to it, and perpetuate it. They actively degrade women. They take satisfaction from putting them in their place, and from taking away their power. They remind them over and over that their bodies, their sexuality, their autonomy, their choices, and their power, are not their own. They exert control- over their own lives, and over the behavior of others, as well as they know how- by perpetuating fear and pain.

I have been called a slut many times in my life, along with many women, but never by someone who I suspected was genuinely interested in my well being, nor by anyone who was very brave, or who loved themselves very much.

Ok, you are saying, even if I am convinced of this myself, it still hurts to operate in a world in which not everyone is on the same page as this. Being viewed as a slut by others still hurts, and still has real negative ramifications for me in this world. How can one find comfort, truth, and transcendence in such an unjust system?

Love yourself, love others, find feminism. In that order!

Thank you for writing.


For more on the term "slut" and the double standard with which it is used, check out Jessica's book!