thoughts on feminism & womanism

a rhizzone community article by — published
I was raised by a very devout second-wave feminist and sheltered from women's magazines and harmful media depictions of women (MTV, etc) and the like until I lost the taste to pursue them. I grew up pro-choice and pro-women's rights in the West. It wasn't until I became of the age to pursue feminist texts on my own that my own theories became more broad and refined for the modern age.

The second-wave did not prepare me for questions of sexuality and gender and so it was on my own that I read and understood these concepts. When my studies began to focus on class and race, my views on feminism broadened further. The apex of my understanding formulated when I became interested in black nationalism, revolutionary anti-imperialism, and third-world womanism. My theories were challenged when I spent time in the Middle East and reformulated on my conversion to Islam. Whereas before I stood with a broad number of women, I found my sister-comrades disappearing through my studies as my interests and positions narrowed. Now I find myself in the position of considering all women my sister-comrades once again, though to them I offer myself mainly as an ally. I would like to trace how this arc developed over time.

First and foremost, I have come to the understanding that first-world feminism has almost nothing in common to the overwhelming majority of women of the world. The issues that I saw as important in my youth have never crossed the radar of these women and they are wary to concern themselves with issues such as abortion (hammered into every young USA feminist's head as the golden issue), sexuality, gender, dress, and public economic position. The stay-at-home mother is the anathema of first-world feminism. She represents a center of patriarchal control that supposedly upholds generations of misogynists and treatment in the media. She is the Madonna, the virtuous and chaste woman who guards the home and traditional family structure. Family is another anathema to the first-world feminist, and is a biological afterthought for many women who seek professional advancement. Issues such as birth control and abortion are focused squarely on this archetype, as women are supposed to have control over their own bodies - to what end? To fully participate in the market economy. When half your working force sits "idle" at home, the economy cannot reach its full potential.

This in itself is a very narrow view for first-world feminists. Poor women have always held paid jobs, whether this is out of their homes or in the factories. They are still expected to hold the position of mothers in the family, often expected to have dinner ready, but are also expected to bring in money. This is actually parallel to the situation of women in the West, who are now expected to work 40 hours a week in an office and still come home and cook dinner, clean the house, and look after the children.

A note on childless women - this is a rarity biologically and when it occurs for women who are physically able to bear children it is generally because of work or a spouse who is sterile. There were more mothers in the USA in 1960 than there are today. The biggest factor for women who are infertile in the USA is their age. They have pushed back child-bearing because of the desire for professional advancement. So these childless women in the USA are generally of a certain class, that being a class of women who are generally well-to-do. The very well-to-do who have children either belong to households that can afford to keep her home to watch after the children or hire help that can look after the house for her.

So, the choice as to have children or not is seriously a class question. Women who are well-to-do have the ability to put off childbearing indefinitely, and then even seek artificial insemination procedures or adopt. In general, though, most women in the world are mothers at some point in their lives. It is the largest commonality that exists in women. And this is possibly the greatest point of contention between first-world feminists and third-world womanists.

Womanism is defined as originally a USA black feminist movement inspired by African women, wherein women are celebrated in their roles as centers-of-family. However, it has grown to include all women who are interested in celebrating their roles while at the same time "(opposing) all oppression based on race, sex, class, sexual preference, physical ability, and caste" (Delores Williams). The issues that interest womanism are rather material issues, such as quality of life and health. While quite able to discuss matters of theory they are mainly concerned with more basic concerns. Therefore, while a feminist might support the invasion of Afghanistan because of how women are treated in Afghanistan, womanists would rather oppose the invasion out of concern for Afghani women's safety and quality of life.

For sure, first-world feminism is incompatible with anti-imperialism. First-world feminists, brought to understanding via complex theoretical issues and yet unaware of the basic conditions of world womankind, seek to impose their issues, ideas, virtues, and ways of thinking on women who are unable to feed their families or walk down the street in safety. Worse yet, first-world feminists are often recruited by imperialists to offer up moral justification for imperial action. In their quest to earn an equal market share of the pie, first-world feminists have long been utilized to "expose" the failings of other societies and their relations to gender, sex, and family issues. The only market where a womens studies degree ever becomes lucrative is when one works internationally. Meanwhile, USA women are unable to present united fronts against basic womens needs in their own countries, either because of too much capital influence (media depictions of women, etc) or because they know they have it "better" than all these other women in the world, so who are they to complain? Better to raise up all other women to their level before fighting further in their own communities.

Yet the dissolution of the community is the biggest threat to effective international women's movements. By being forced to recognize that women live as one body women are no longer able to adequately focus on the problems plaguing their own communities. The cookie-cutter curriculum passed out by international aid organizations for "women's development" on the ground in the third world confirms this assumption. By weakening communities, capital spreads. This is globalization. So first-world feminists must take a hard look in the mirror and reassess their place in such a system. Are they helping to build communities or to destroy them? Are they empowering women, or are they empowering women in the way they see best?

I traveled abroad and was met by many women who were warm and welcoming and yet showed concern for my childless state. A few confided to me that women from their society see women from mine as being sexless, deprived, disrespected, and uncouth. I'd never felt that way until I arrived, educated and trained, and yet could still feel that yawning chasm of inequality back home through the examples the women gave me - how we are treated like meat, how we are raped, how we are forced to be all sorts of things at once. And yet here I was, in another country, in another society and community, here to deliver these virtues up into their world, where women for sure worked outside of the house and for sure held gender roles in their societies, but exercised a great deal of power through embracing their realities and seeking direct action for their problems instead of endless discussions about gender theory. How often had I sought to make things better for the women in my neighborhood before I first came here where my help was unwanted and unwelcome?

So I guess where I am now, after processing this through years of self-reflection and consideration of the theory I'd been so eager to consume, is somewhere that is ambivalent and in the middle, yet more radical than I've ever been. I am against globalization and imperialism. I am against the eradication of cultures and religion. I am for women working in their own communities on what they consider to be the most trying issues, and I am for women joining hands with each other internationally when they see fit for issues that affect women worldwide.

It would be nice to see a UN type institution for women, where they could meet and discuss issues and plan joint actions where they see fit to do so. Like the UN it would probably not have much purpose beyond this, but without a security council type apparatus we could finally hear the voices of the women in the oppressed majority and hear what concerns them the most. Perhaps it is not about earning a wage equal to a man's... perhaps it is earning a wage for labor in the home. Perhaps it is not about family planning and maybe it is more about financial and material support for families already existing or for those who wish to have families.

If we look to the major triumphs for women in the third world, it almost always follows the pattern of womanism as opposed to feminism. Women in Libya were given money gifts from the state to begin families. Women in Venezuela are paid 80% of minimum wage for work in the home. Often families are given stipends by the government for number of children in the home, not to soak up welfare money but rather to assure that children have a basic standard of living. Women attend school for free in most Middle Eastern countries, and their attendance outnumbers male attendance in almost all cases. Universal healthcare exists in the third world, helping women and their families. Etc.

So perhaps the best answer is to focus on what matters in our communities first, and then set up a way for us to have a fair and balanced dialogue on an international stage with our sisters abroad. This would clear things up for a lot of us, and help us start to focus more on our neighbor than Salma in Egypt. In this way I'm sure we could see more results in a better fashion.

Meanwhile, a word of advice to first world feminists: take your heads out your asses. I tried to find a good first-world feminist blog to read about issues that might be affecting our communities, but all I see is diatribes and drama, fashion and sex tips. Like how women's magazines were eventually appropriated to push capitalist messages, so too have our blogs and womens networks, now more concerned with a pro-choice President (none of them have ever been btw!) rather than feeding the poor on your street. Women in the first world need to start focusing on material issues as opposed to the theoretical issues. Leave those to the academic ghettos on campus (women's studies departments) and get to work formulating action plans instead of kicking the can down the road all day about sexism in video games and TV shows... those are reflections of our material conditions! Women have no respect in society's purview because we have not demanded it through action. Rosie the Riviter and Suzie the Soviet were not about inspiring women to action, it was rather that these were portraits of real-life women engaged in action and transforming society calling their sisters to arms.

Also by discipline on tHE r H i z z o n E:

Knowing your audience? Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino finally made a version of Inglorious Basterds for me.
A Nation of Lazy Bums and Unpaid Interns: Youth Unemployment in 21st Century USA
The youth unemployment debate generally ignores the rapidly changing nature of the US economy. Youth unemployment is the highest in recorded history.
the united states is a sham construct used to keep the people down
the answer is creating a shadow state that delivers community services and then kicking out the state legislatures and seceding from the union, or at least renegotiating the terms of being a part of it.
More articles by discipline.

Discussion of thoughts on feminism & womanism on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
I think one explanation for the sort of divide you see, other than pure material concerns, is that discourse analysis has focused on the construction of identities, with an associated ethic of autonomy to construct one's own identity to some degree. Feminists struggles have tended to focus on allowing one to be "other" in a society - to be lesbian, to be transgender, to be childless, to be sexually free. In communities that emphasize cohesion, this individualism is a secondary concern. It still seems important, though.

Wages for housework was a major movement in Europe connected with socialist feminism, and ideas like that were really the foundation of the Italian autonomist theory. Child care is widely available in continental Europe because of struggles like this, and there are some equivalents in places like Quebec. Socialist feminists have emphasized the collective responsibility of child-rearing. One thing socialists have tended to suggest is that the idea of "mother" is currently overloaded with meaning, and that some of this meaning will be transferred to other members of the community. For example, your "motherhood" idea that you have pressed is because of a particular social role, which is contingent. That is, just because women physically produce babies does not necessarily mean anything else about them. It is possible that child-rearing could be done in such a collectivized way that women could see pregnancy as an important role, but it is entirely plausible to me that children could see their parents as something of minor importance when compared to the community as a whole, or at least special members like teachers and so on. This has all been discussed a lot by feminists, though, I don't know why you have difficulty finding things like this.
#2
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~
cool OP
#3
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

GoldenLionTamarin posted:
cool OP

#4
[account deactivated]
#5
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
I think deconstructing the role of mother is rather quixotic and backwards; reforming society to generate healthy social roles, including those of motherhood, is a more practical and beneficial path. I don't think motherhood is some fundamentally oppressive institution of the patriarchy or whatever though, I just think there may be some elements peculiar to it (under present circumstances) that need to be reformed.
#6
[account deactivated]
#7
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +

I agree with this, but I think that one of the reasons why there is such a focus on the individual is twofold in our society: (1) it ruins communities (2) it feeds into the fantasy

You conflate together society at large with the views of left-feminists which is unfair. Leftists have focused on identity because of the failure of revolutions to achieve many of their aims. This confused people who had thought that workers would work towards revolution in a fairly straightforward way. Identity also became important because of the rise of new social movements like feminism, minority ethnic movements, postcolonialism and so on. None of these factors fits neatly into your schema.

would socialists seek to do away with motherhood?

I don't think you understand the point then. The point is not to separate mothers from motherhood in some crass antagonistic way. It is more to ensure that there is no imposed sphere of women's work that detracts from the ability of a person to develop in what way they want. For example, it was once commonsensical that women were required to do long days of housework, and this work was considered feminine and a special domain of women. It was deeply romanticized and seen as a special gift that women gave to the world. Nowadays most feminists would see gender-balanced work-sharing of housework, to the point of collectivizing housework or paying it wages, as a positive thing. It might be that there is a possibility of enlarging the role of fatherhood, for example, or even involving more caring from a wider range of people. Also, it seems inappropriate to call changes in identity as "unnatural" given the fact that identities are socially constructed.

#8
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~
interesting.....
#9
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
#10
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
I wanted to add on w/r/t motherhood that first world feminists in the USA especially should examine why it is that they alienate women with children, or why women with children don't feel comfortable signing up with the "riotgrrrl" mentality or joining in action vis-a-vis performance art or candlelight marches to take back the night.



its because what you are calling second wave feminism is a form of vanity or even idolatry at least historically if you care to consider it sources and antecedents. its purpose is almost entirely expressive so at best it achieves nothing but the occlusion of its subject(which has had a very apparent deleterious effect as you've identified). most feminist activity is hopelessly obfuscatory which is why its permitted at all.

what you are calling womanism is practical and generative so of course has no place with the secular self-absorbed identity-obsessed left

#11
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

I agree with this, but I think that one of the reasons why there is such a focus on the individual is twofold in our society: (1) it ruins communities (2) it feeds into the fantasy

You conflate together society at large with the views of left-feminists which is unfair. Leftists have focused on identity because of the failure of revolutions to achieve many of their aims. This confused people who had thought that workers would work towards revolution in a fairly straightforward way. Identity also became important because of the rise of new social movements like feminism, minority ethnic movements, postcolonialism and so on. None of these factors fits neatly into your schema.



do not think that the obsessive focus on identity is not deliberately obfuscatory and a maneuver to hobble its veery subjects?

#12
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

stacey posted:
do not think that the obsessive focus on identity is not deliberately obfuscatory and a maneuver to hobble its veery subjects?

No. I think that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. :hampants:

#13
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:
Identity also became important because of the rise of new social movements like feminism, minority ethnic movements, postcolonialism and so on. None of these factors fits neatly into your schema.



I don't really see the problem with what's discipline posted and those movements, nor do I see the rise of identity politics as necesarily contigent on these movements, nor do I see the significance of those movements and whatever signifiance identity has to be linked.

#14
Post rating: ~

GoldenLionTamarin posted:
cool OP

#15
[account deactivated]
#16
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

getfiscal posted:
Identity also became important because of the rise of new social movements like feminism, minority ethnic movements, postcolonialism and so on. None of these factors fits neatly into your schema.

I don't really see the problem

#17
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
I don't see how housework has much to do at all with motherhood!

This is your first-worldist feminism, which doesn't see the value of uniting around the preparation of the home's food by women, which is shared in the global south. Maybe this has something to do with buying shoes.

#18
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:
I think one explanation for the sort of divide you see, other than pure material concerns, is that discourse analysis has focused on the construction of identities, with an associated ethic of autonomy to construct one's own identity to some degree. Feminists struggles have tended to focus on allowing one to be "other" in a society - to be lesbian, to be transgender, to be childless, to be sexually free. In communities that emphasize cohesion, this individualism is a secondary concern. It still seems important, though.

Wages for housework was a major movement in Europe connected with socialist feminism, and ideas like that were really the foundation of the Italian autonomist theory. Child care is widely available in continental Europe because of struggles like this, and there are some equivalents in places like Quebec. Socialist feminists have emphasized the collective responsibility of child-rearing. One thing socialists have tended to suggest is that the idea of "mother" is currently overloaded with meaning, and that some of this meaning will be transferred to other members of the community. For example, your "motherhood" idea that you have pressed is because of a particular social role, which is contingent. That is, just because women physically produce babies does not necessarily mean anything else about them. It is possible that child-rearing could be done in such a collectivized way that women could see pregnancy as an important role, but it is entirely plausible to me that children could see their parents as something of minor importance when compared to the community as a whole, or at least special members like teachers and so on. This has all been discussed a lot by feminists, though, I don't know why you have difficulty finding things like this.



Wasn't this type of thing the m.o. of childrearing at various kibbutzim of Israel in the 50s and 60s? At various American communes in the 70s and 80s as well. I've seen this type of thing espoused by those communards plenty of times, but it does not seem to work well in practice. I haven't met anyone who was raised this way that wasn't incredibly fucked up or had extreme attachment issues once they became adults.

#19
[account deactivated]
#20
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

germanjoey posted:

getfiscal posted:
I think one explanation for the sort of divide you see, other than pure material concerns, is that discourse analysis has focused on the construction of identities, with an associated ethic of autonomy to construct one's own identity to some degree. Feminists struggles have tended to focus on allowing one to be "other" in a society - to be lesbian, to be transgender, to be childless, to be sexually free. In communities that emphasize cohesion, this individualism is a secondary concern. It still seems important, though.

Wages for housework was a major movement in Europe connected with socialist feminism, and ideas like that were really the foundation of the Italian autonomist theory. Child care is widely available in continental Europe because of struggles like this, and there are some equivalents in places like Quebec. Socialist feminists have emphasized the collective responsibility of child-rearing. One thing socialists have tended to suggest is that the idea of "mother" is currently overloaded with meaning, and that some of this meaning will be transferred to other members of the community. For example, your "motherhood" idea that you have pressed is because of a particular social role, which is contingent. That is, just because women physically produce babies does not necessarily mean anything else about them. It is possible that child-rearing could be done in such a collectivized way that women could see pregnancy as an important role, but it is entirely plausible to me that children could see their parents as something of minor importance when compared to the community as a whole, or at least special members like teachers and so on. This has all been discussed a lot by feminists, though, I don't know why you have difficulty finding things like this.

Wasn't this type of thing the m.o. of childrearing at various kibbutzim of Israel in the 50s and 60s? At various American communes in the 70s and 80s as well. I've seen this type of thing espoused by those communards plenty of times, but it does not seem to work well in practice. I haven't met anyone who was raised this way that wasn't incredibly fucked up or had extreme attachment issues once they became adults.



social engineering generally is pretty messed up and stupid

#21
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
no, it's because housework has little to do with motherhood, especially since women world over are expected to do housework whether or not they are mothers.

You are saying that women should unite around their role as mothers. But you are packing a lot into the identity of mother. If it were just "we hold babies for a while" then it wouldn't be anything to unite around. It'd be like men uniting around ejaculation. It's the social role that "motherhood" plays that matters to you, it seems to me, but there's no necessary reason why that couldn't be constructed differently, through feminism building new roles for everyone. And if that is wrong, then "motherhood" in itself doesn't necessarily mean any particular policy program. For example, reactionary states have traditionally prized motherhood, even handing out awards of various kinds for natalist reasons, with panics about women not producing enough fit soldiers and so on. So even if motherhood is to be prized, how it is prized matters much more, which isn't something people will naturally agree on. Your ideas seem based on trying to build a consensus, which is good, but it seems far too simplistic.

#22
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

germanjoey posted:
Wasn't this type of thing the m.o. of childrearing at various kibbutzim of Israel in the 50s and 60s? At various American communes in the 70s and 80s as well. I've seen this type of thing espoused by those communards plenty of times, but it does not seem to work well in practice. I haven't met anyone who was raised this way that wasn't incredibly fucked up or had extreme attachment issues once they became adults.

I think a better example is the more moderate forms of it: Child care services, public education, collective food preparation, cooperative laundries - stuff that unpacks women's work from individuals (if/when they want it to) and allows women to focus on what they want to. I think it is more that roles shift once you do offer those things.

#23
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:



Privilege Denying Dude

also people literally identify as two-spirit and arent immediately subjected to a barrage of hysterical laughter. afgmdfiherahdf

#24
Post rating: +
a lot of this seems to mirror what i hear from the 'christian feminist' movement -- that the home is a woman's natural place (you do bring up the necessity of labor but that sentiment is definitely there esp. with the mention of stay-at-home mothers as anathema (they're not)), that the bearing and rearing of children is their natural occupation if not absolute moral duty, & that dismantling the structures that enforce this state is a rejection of their agency. i don't buy it when they say it & i'm not about to when somebody else says it

so first off, you present motherhood as the primary attribute of women in general. i can't deny its commonality but even laying aside the problems with essentialism cause i don't feel like dragging that up, the big Point of standard feminism is that this is being forced on women. i don't know of any feminists who have a problem with the idea of motherhood freely chosen: it's the force part we object to. and that's alive and well in the third world and all you have to say about it is that the women you have spoken to are used to it & accept that state of affairs. that's tangential at best.

you go on to declare short-sightedness a problem with 'first-world feminism' itself, as if it's built into the theory. but you don't explain why it's a necessary attribute of fwf instead of being a personal failing of some, perhaps many, people who agree with it. in the same vein & paragraph you also say that fwf is incompatible with anti-imperialism, again w/o justifying this incompatibility as an attribute of the movement rather than the people. the ideals of feminism are thoroughly anti-imperial -- tearing down structures of oppression & repression, free choice of being & belonging -- and that doesn't change when people screw things up

i think i had more but i have a bad memory & a tire to get changed so this will have to do for now

also if you want a blog to read idk you managed to miss the angry black woman or i blame the patriarchy
#25
[account deactivated]
#26
Post rating: ~
I posted a couple articles on wddp about this that other people might be interested in. theres definitely a tendency for first world movements in general to impose its goals, virtues, and ideas on the rest of the world, and this is completely a colonial mentality. One example had a big effect on how I view colonial feminism

http://wddp.org/index.php?/topic/3799-2-articles-on-neoliberal-colonial-feminism/

You have all heard about Amina Wadud and her involvement in the development of Islamic feminism. She became well known the day she lead the prayer, a role usually reserved for men. Out of context, I would say that it could be thought of as a revolutionary act. However, in an international context that saw the Iranian Revolution and 9/11 (as well as growing Islamophobia, demands that Islam update and modernize itself), a much more ambiguous message was brought to light. Was it answering strong demands, an urgency, the fundamental expectations of women from the Umma? Or were these expectations of the white world? Allow me to dwell on the latter hypothesis. Not that there aren’t any women who find it an injustice that only men be allowed to lead the prayer but because women’s priorities and urgent needs are elsewhere.

What do Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian women want? Peace, the end of the war and the occupation, the rebuilding of their national infrastructures, legal frameworks that guarantee their rights and protect them, access to sufficient food and water, the ability to feed and educate their children under good conditions. What do Muslim women in Europe and more generally those who are immigrants and who, for the most part, live in lower income neighborhoods want? A job, housing, rights that protect them not only from state violence but also men’s violence. They demand respect for their religion, their culture. Why are all of these demands silenced and why does the issue of leading the prayer make its way across the globe when Judaism and Christianity have never really made apparent their own intransigent defense of the equality of sexes? To finish up with this example, I believe that Amina Wadud’s act was, in fact, quite the opposite of what it claimed to be. In reality and independently of the theologian’s own wishes, this act, in my opinion, was counter-productive. It will only be able to adopt a feminist dimension once Islam is equally treated with respect and once the demands to lead the prayer come from Muslim women themselves. It is time to see Muslim men and women how they really are and not how we would like them to be.



Rather than seeing FWF as inherently bad, the focus should be on the liberal and imperialist parts of FWF, the parts of FWF that want to impose their goals on another society.
#27
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
Amina Wudud is better situated within the context of female scholarship and leadership within the Muslim community, something that is desperately needed to be re-established

Also I don't read WDDP so you should post that stuff here
#28
[account deactivated]
#29
Post rating: +
since people are banned from wddp, here's the articles:

http://www.feminisms.org/3562/global-organizing-gone-awry-why-international-neo-liberal-feminist-movements-are-bad-for-women-and-bad-for-feminism/


Feminists organizing for women’s rights in 2011 face a unique challenge: as community organizers, just what defines “our” community? Anyone reading this blog can likely recognize the oft-repeated mantras: we live in a borderless society; we are a global community.


The phrases “global feminism” and “transnational feminism” have surfaced in recent decades, and are now thrown around (often interchangeably) when discussing international feminist movements, gatherings or alliances. But there is a big difference between global feminism and transnational feminism. It boils down to whether we are committed to wide-reaching, yet locally sensitive organizing, or if we prefer to promote a one-size-fits-all, please-all-the-world diluted pseudo-feminist politic.


Margaretha Geertsma, an associate professor at Butler University’s Faculty of Journalism and Communication, has written extensively on this topic in recent years. She describes global feminism as a white, hegemonic US-based feminism, blind to difference and unique global contexts in the pursuit of a movement that “unites” all women (“Look! We all did a Slutwalk! My signs are in English, yours in Tagalog, we are one. Success!”). Other critics of the concept of a “global sisterhood” go even further, describing them as homogenizing, narrow, Eurocentric and imperialist.


Transnational feminism, on the other hand, treats difference – in experience, location, context, and identity – not as a challenge to be overcome, but rather as invaluable wisdom that should inform our activism. Acknowledging these differences can only make international feminist organizing, and of course, the lives of real women around the world, better.


At the recent Women’s Worlds 2011 conference, held in Ottawa from July 3-7, the partnership of Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter and la Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle presented Flesh Mapping: Prostitution in a globalized world/La Resistencia de las mujeres/Les draps parlent. It was an interactive multimedia installation that featured video shot in both Vancouver and Montreal, and 70 bed-sheet art canvasses, demonstrating the connections between global trafficking and the sexual exploitation of women. On display for three whole days, the exhibit was accompanied by both spontaneous dialogue among viewers, as well as structured roundtable discussions among Canadian women (women of colour, Aboriginal women, Quebecois women, white women), as well as women from Norway, Haiti, Nigeria, Morocco, Bangladesh, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Denmark, Israel and Australia. These speakers included women who have left prostitution, front-line workers, and community organizers. Ninety-minute roundtable discussions were simultaneously translated into French, English and Spanish.


While the women involved were united in their recognition of the root of women’s inequality and sexual exploitation worldwide (patriarchy and capitalism, a mutually reinforcing, toxic dyad), their unique local experiences and contexts were honoured and highlighted, not glossed over for the sake of letting Western experiences and approaches prevail. From all appearances each participant was an equal contributor to the knowledge that was shared – no one woman’s wisdom was privileged over another.

Twelve countries, three languages, countless unique voices and experiences, all coming together in a powerful display of feminist organizing. This is transnational feminism at its finest.

It succeeded at being transnational, I argue, because organizers refused to depart from their radical approach. They did exactly what Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan prescribe in their book, Scattered Hegemonies: Postmodernity and transnational feminist practices; instead of operating on some pretense of “global sisterhood,” these women created true solidarity by forming alliances with women from all over world, who, while differing in their experiences and local contexts, were united in their efforts to examine, work against, and bring down patriarchy. For the transnational feminist, the only universal is patriarchy. Ergo, transnational feminism is, and can only be, radical in nature.


In the debates over how and when to take a transnational approach, some have argued it should be treated as an alternative between two extremes popular in international mobilization. On the one side is religious dogma of all stripes, undermining women’s rights outright, and on the other, universalist, liberal feminism, which undermines women’s loyalties, local contexts, and unique experiences. According to some feminist writers, transnational feminism offers a safe route between the two.


But can we really treat transnational feminism simply as an “alternative”? There is no denying the real threat from religious fundamentalists who continue to spread their messages worldwide, whether in the form of a viral sermon or a horrifying act of domestic terrorism. Feminists of all leans would agree these groups pose an immediate threat to women worldwide. But is universalist, liberal ‘feminism’ – pole-dance if it makes him happy, I’m radical if I say I am ‘feminism’ – really that meek by comparison? Keep in mind this approach is often influenced by what others have referred to as the Congo effect: “Sure Canadian men still get away with battery and harassment on a daily basis and earn 20% more than women do, but hey, at least this ain’t Congo; as long as we’re not living in the rape capital of the world we should just shut up and say thank you. In the meantime, let’s march in, save these women, and show them how equality is really achieved!” Can we really afford to say this kind of global feminism is one way, but transitional feminism is better? We cannot, and we should not.


When we allow Canadian, American or Western European-born ‘feminist’ movements that place individual ‘freedom’ and ‘empowerment’ at their centre (of course within a Canadian, American or Western European context) we let centuries of feminist energy dedicated to dismantling patriarchy fizzle into marches and legal battles focused on very privileged women remaking age-old sexist practices (prostitution, sexual assault victim-blaming) into ways for them to profit; both literally, as profiteers in this capitalist system they seem happy to continue to perpetuate; or metaphorically, as the women who gain worldwide fame for making ‘feminist’ activism fun, sexy and enjoyable by all.

The de-radicalization of feminist organizing worldwide makes it easy to pretend we’re fostering some magical global sisterhood. But feminism ain’t about what’s easy. It’s time to think, act and organize transnationally, for the good of all women on their terms, not just the good of women like “us,” on ours.


http://kasamaproject.org/2011/02/19/decolonial-feminism-the-privilege-of-solidarity/


I would, first of all, like to thank the Junta Islamica Catalana for having organized this colloquium, which is a real breath of fresh air in a Europe that is shriveling up in upon itself, wrought up in xenophobic debates and increasingly rejecting difference/alterity.

I hope that such an initiative will be able to take place in France. Before getting into the subject at hand, I would like to introduce myself, as I believe that speech should always be located.


I live in France, I am the daughter of Algerian immigrants. My father was a working class man and my mother was a housewife. I am not speaking as a sociologist, a researcher or a theologian. In other words, I am no expert.


I am an activist and I am speaking as a result of my experience as a political activist and, I might add, my own personal sensibility. I am insisting on these details because I would like to be as honest as possible in my reasoning. Truth be told, until today, I hadn’t really thought about the question of Islamic feminism. So why am I taking part in this colloquium? When I was invited, I made it quite clear that I lacked the authority to speak about Islamic feminism and that I would rather deal with the idea of decolonial feminism and the ways in which, I believe, it should be related to the more general question of Islamic feminism.


That is why I thought I would lay out a few questions that could prove useful for our collective questioning.

* Is feminism universal?
* What is the relationship between white/Western feminisms and Third World feminisms among which we find Islamic feminisms?
* Is feminism compatible with Islam?
* If it is, then how can it be legitimized and what would its priorities be?

First Question: Is feminism universal?

For me, it is the question of all questions when adopting a decolonial approach and when attempting to decolonize feminism. This question is essential, not because of the answer but rather because it makes us, we who live in the West, take the necessary precautions when we are confronted with ‘Other’ societies.


Let’s take, for example, so-called Western societies that witnessed the emergence of feminist movements and have been influenced by them. The women who fought against patriarchy in favor of an equal dignity between men and women gained rights and improved women’s circumstances, which I, myself, benefit from.


Let’s compare their situation, that is to say our situation, with that of so-called “primitive” societies in Amazonia for instance. There are still societies here and there that have been spared by Western influence. I should add here that I don’t consider any society to be primitive. I think there are differing spaces/times on our planet, different temporalities, that no civilization is in advance or behind on any other, that I don’t locate myself on a scale of progress and that I don’t consider progress an end in itself nor a political goal.


In other words, I don’t necessarily consider progress to be progressive but sometimes, even often, it is regressive. And, I think that the decolonial question can also be applied to our perception of time. Getting back to the subject at hand, if we take as our criteria the simple notion of well-being, who in this room can state that the women from those societies (who know nothing of the concept of feminism as we conceive of it) are less well-off than European women who not only took part in the struggles but also made available, to their societies, these invaluable social gains?


I, myself, find it quite impossible to answer this question and would consider quite fortunate whoever could. But yet again, the answer is of no importance. The question itself is, for it humbles us, and curbs our imperialist tendencies as well as our interfering reflexes. It prevents us from considering our own norms as universal and trying to make other’s realities fit into our own. In short, it makes us locate ourselves with regards to our own particularities.


Between Western & Third World feminisms

Having laid out that question clearly, I now feel more at ease to tackle the second question dealing with the relationship between Western feminisms and Third World feminisms. Obviously it’s very complicated but one of its dimensions is the domination of the global south by the global north. A decolonial approach should question this relationship and attempt to subvert it. An example:


In 2007, women from the Movement of the Indigenous of the Republic took part in the annual 8th of March demonstration in support of women’s struggles. At that time, the American campaign against Iran had begun. We decided to march behind a banner that’s message was “No feminism without anti-imperialism”. We were all wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs and handing out flyers in support of three resistant Iraqi women taken prisoner by the Americans. When we arrived, the organizers of the official procession started chanting slogans in support of Iranian women. We found these slogans extremely shocking given the ideological offensive against Iran at that time. Why the Iranians, the Algerians and not the Palestinians and the Iraqis? Why such selective choices? To thwart these slogans, we decided to express our solidarity not with Third World women but rather with Western women. And so we chanted:


Solidarity with Swedish women!

Solidarity with Italian women!

Solidarity with German women!

Solidarity with English women!

Solidarity with French women!

Solidarity with American women!


Which meant:

Why should you, white women, have the privilege of solidarity? You are also battered, raped, you are also subject to men’s violence, you are also underpaid, despised, your bodies are also instrumentalized…


I can tell you that they looked at us as if we were from outer space. What we were saying seemed surreal, inconceivable. It was like the 4th dimension. It wasn’t so much the fact that we reminded them of their situation as Western women that shocked them. It was more the fact that African and Arabo-Muslim women had dared symbolically subvert a relationship of domination and had established themselves as patrons. In other words, with this skillful rhetorical turn, we showed them that they de facto had a superior status to our own. We found their looks of disbelief quite entertaining.


Another example: After a solidarity trip to Palestine, a friend was telling me how the French women had asked the Palestinian women if they used birth control. According to my friend, the Palestinian women couldn’t understand such a question given how important the demographic issue is in Palestine. They were coming from a completely different perspective. For many Palestinian women, having children is an act of resistance against the ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli state.

There you have two examples that illustrate our situation as racialized women, that help understand what is at stake and envisage a way to fight colonialist and Eurocentric feminism.


Following on from that question, is Islam compatible with feminism?

This question is purely provocative on my behalf. I can’t stand it. I am asking this question to imitate some French journalist who believes they are asking a really pertinent question. As for me, I refuse to answer out of principle.


On the one hand, because it comes from a position of arrogance. The representative of civilization X is demanding that the representative of civilization Y prove something. Y is, therefore, put in dock and must provide proof of her/his “modern-ness”, justify her/him-self to please X.


On the other hand, because the answer is not simple when one knows that the Islamic world is not monolithic. The debate could go on forever and that is exactly what happens when you make the mistake of trying to answer.


Myself, I cut to the chase by asking X the following question:Is the French Republic compatible with feminism?


I can guarantee you one thing: ideological victory is in the answer to this question. In France, 1 woman dies every 3 days as a result of domestic violence. The number rapes per year is estimated around 48 000. Women are underpaid. Women’s pensions are considerably less substantial than those of men. Political, economic and symbolic power remains mostly in the hands of men. True, since the 60’s and 70’s, men share more in household duties: statistically, 3 min more than 30 years ago!! So I ask my question again: are the French Republic and feminism compatible? We would be tempted to say no!


Actually, the answer is neither yes nor no. French women liberated French women and it’s thanks to them that the Republic is less macho than it was. The same goes for Arabo-Muslim, African and Asian countries. No more, no less. With, however, one extra challenge: consolidating within women’s struggles the decolonial dimension, that is to say the critique of modernity and eurocentrism.

How to legitimize Islamic feminism?


For me, it legitimizes itself. It doesn’t have to pass a feminist exam. The simple fact that Muslim women have taken it up to demand their rights and their dignity is enough for it to be fully recognized. I know, as result of my intimate knowledge of women from the Maghreb and in the diaspora, that “the-submissive-woman” does not exist. She was invented. I know women that are dominated. Submissive ones are rarer!


I would like to conclude with what, in my opinion, should be priorities for decolonial feminism.


You have all heard about Amina Wadud and her involvement in the development of Islamic feminism. She became well known the day she lead the prayer, a role usually reserved for men. Out of context, I would say that it could be thought of as a revolutionary act. However, in an international context that saw the Iranian Revolution and 9/11 (as well as growing Islamophobia, demands that Islam update and modernize itself), a much more ambiguous message was brought to light. Was it answering strong demands, an urgency, the fundamental expectations of women from the Umma? Or were these expectations of the white world? Allow me to dwell on the latter hypothesis. Not that there aren’t any women who find it an injustice that only men be allowed to lead the prayer but because women’s priorities and urgent needs are elsewhere.


What do Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian women want? Peace, the end of the war and the occupation, the rebuilding of their national infrastructures, legal frameworks that guarantee their rights and protect them, access to sufficient food and water, the ability to feed and educate their children under good conditions. What do Muslim women in Europe and more generally those who are immigrants and who, for the most part, live in lower income neighborhoods want? A job, housing, rights that protect them not only from state violence but also men’s violence. They demand respect for their religion, their culture. Why are all of these demands silenced and why does the issue of leading the prayer make its way across the globe when Judaism and Christianity have never really made apparent their own intransigent defense of the equality of sexes? To finish up with this example, I believe that Amina Wadud’s act was, in fact, quite the opposite of what it claimed to be. In reality and independently of the theologian’s own wishes, this act, in my opinion, was counter-productive. It will only be able to adopt a feminist dimension once Islam is equally treated with respect and once the demands to lead the prayer come from Muslim women themselves. It is time to see Muslim men and women how they really are and not how we would like them to be.


I conclude here and hope to have shown the ways in which a true decolonial feminism could benefit women, all women when they, themselves, deem it to be their path to emancipation.

#30
[account deactivated]
#31
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
I agree with that transnational feminism article, that's sort of what I've been arguing more generally in the Marxism & Colonialism thread
#32
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
That second article is very good as well imo
#33
Post rating: ~

pogfan1996 posted:
since people are banned from wddp, here's the articles:
When we allow Canadian, American or Western European-born ‘feminist’ movements that place individual ‘freedom’ and ‘empowerment’ at their centre (of course within a Canadian, American or Western European context) we let centuries of feminist energy dedicated to dismantling patriarchy fizzle into marches and legal battles focused on very privileged women remaking age-old sexist practices (prostitution, sexual assault victim-blaming) into ways for them to profit; both literally, as profiteers in this capitalist system they seem happy to continue to perpetuate; or metaphorically, as the women who gain worldwide fame for making ‘feminist’ activism fun, sexy and enjoyable by all.



unfortunately the author stops just short of making the important distinction here. it gets close but throws on the breaks for whatever reason. western feminism isnt about the welfare of women its an expressive phenomenon. its self-absorbed, tautological and its about identity rather than place. it has no function other than making making the office of woman more oblique, fragmented and harder to occupy. the attempt to globalize this is so gross and disgusting and evil. the feature of a global sisterhood is enough of a reason to be skeptical of western femenism if not outright resistant to it

#34
[account deactivated]
#35
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:

stacey posted:
western feminism isnt about the welfare of women its an expressive phenomenon.

no, it is about the welfare of women, it's just a question of what they find the pressing issues of welfare to be exactly



isnt that splitting hairs with a fucking laser beam. if i think that intellectualizing women to the point of disfiguring them in the name of identity is a form of welfare that doesnt make that the case anywhere except the schizophrenic, simultaneously self-loathing and self-absorbed west. let alone if im being coaxed to do that by forces that know my actions will destabilize the postion of women and are invested in that effect. im sure im wrong or oversimplifying this

#36
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
thank you for writing this as this helps me clarify what I was writing earlier and helps me reiterate my main point. first off, my position is different from a christian feminist because nowhere have I stated that a woman's natural place is the home. In fact, the only place where I spoke about the home in the OP was where I mentioned that women in Venezuela (and elsewhere) are paid for their house labor but the state.yet my main point is less about what women are and more about what material conditions they face. womanists accept and negotiate these material conditions while feminists seek to, as you put it " down structures of oppression & repression, free choice of being & belonging" which is not always productive and can be appropriated for ill gains, especially when you are working outside your own community. this is a market-based approach to feminism... "there shall be no social institutions you cannot opt in or out of!" any condition existing outside these parameters becomes necessarily "oppressive" and "coercive" which I don't accept, just as I don't accept that taxation and market regulation are oppressive or coercive.

I am simply saying that most women on earth share the experience of motherhood, not out of choice, but out of fact. therefore we are not supporting motherhood from any ideological stance, but rather out of necessity due to material conditions, due to healthy motherhood being a key need in the world today when mothers are still dying in childbirth, need to work 3 jobs to pay the hospital bill, or are forced to return to work immediately without being given maternity allowances (which is necessary because most women breast feed their children), etc. this is just one of the material realities that needs to be tackled for women, there being many others, but that's where I get into the whole "act locally and collaborate internationally" schtick because different communities have different material conditions and different ways of facing these challenges, ways which should arise from the self-determination of those women to construct their communities as they see fit - anything from domestic violence to food assistance to prisoner support to STD education.

also I don't know where I said I know third world women who are used to and accept the state of affairs of being forced to become mothers. if you mean force and coercion like that's an expected part of family life, that's different and perhaps you're pointing to mama in law whining about "when are you gonna give me a grandkid!" as force, but I don't know of any woman in either the first world or the third who accepts forced motherhood.

I guess the problem with discussing this is that the parameters for motherhood have not been clearly laid out for the purposes of this discussion. I am speaking of a biological phenomenon where a woman gestates and then gives birth to a child, nurses a child, and is primarily responsible for a child for the first few years of its life due to either social or biological necessity (if the child is still breast feeding, for instance). there are other types of care-taking traditionally assigned to women, but I'm talking about motherhood in specific as a shoehorn for a broader argument about how women should work together locally + internationally. I'm encountering a lot of equating motherhood with housework, which is a separate thing all together...



hm. while i agree that the existence of participation-required institutions is not in and of itself a bad thing, i have to draw the line at institutions in which participation is required for some but not all. what is the purpose of these structures? -- generally speaking, to promote & add to themselves, and that's usually done at the expense of the people who must participate. i am not approaching this from a libertarian pov as you suggest, but from a collectivist: there shall be nothing required of one that is not required of all.

that motherhood must be supported as a valid choice -- again i agree (so much for my membership in vhemt) but the central word there is choice. motherhood is not so much a choice especially in the third world since women are much more frequently dependent on men. there aren't a whole lot of options for a poor woman operating in a patriarchal framework & marriage and family tend to look a hell of a lot better than starvation, but 'better than starvation'... ain't exactly saying much. and while this sort of situation is obviously not going anywhere fast, to say that it is a good thing rather than a bad thing that people have to put up with for now is a gigantic leap

also like i said you did not explicitly say that 'a womans place is in the home' but it is certainly implied by your declaration of womanhood as family-oriented above all else & i have to suggest taking a really close look at why you're focusing on that b/c not only does it attack the validity and agency of women who cannot or choose not to have families but also denies fundamental equality among humans in defining the nature of a specific group of people by a specific social, constructed role -- constructed around sex-specific physical characteristics certainly, but no less constructed for that

#37
[account deactivated]
#38
[account deactivated]
#39
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
I agree with the majority of what you're saying and feel like we're talking from different positions but towards the same point. I was discussing this with someone else today and they framed it as a "black is beautiful" or pride parades thing. motherhood is a good way to build bridges across communities because it is such a common experience for the sex. instead of painting motherhood as a coerced choice, and I'm still not getting where you're coming from with regards to this coercion, as something that chains you to the house or is packaged with ideas of traditional regressive stereotypes of women, perhaps it should be celebrated in the community as a position of power and love.

it's the same argument pro-choice advocates make when they point out that lawmakers are more than happy to shut down abortion but not as willing to see support from the community or government for poor families or single mothers.I most certainly do not believe that a woman's place is in the home and do not understand where you're pulling that from. I'm sure that there have been writers who argue my points to a different conclusion. sure, not everyone will be a mother but everyone necessarily did have a mother. and mothers need support. they need free healthcare and paid maternity leave. and here I speak for my own community: we need to work towards a society that enables mothers to be active members in society no matter how they see fit.

the USA, for instance, is the only developed country with no mandatory maternity leave. I worked with a waitress who had twins and was back on the clock the day after because that's what the boss said had to happen. a woman without a child is 100% more likely to get a job than a woman with a child. there is no state-subsidized childcare, nor is there any mandated maternity or paternity benefits such as alternative schedules, sick leave, etc. the main reason I stated in the OP w/r/t women "choosing" to be childless in this country is because of their position within the market economy. my mother lost her job at the height of her career because she had a child, and while I wish this was something I could write off as being "from the 80's" it's not, women lose their jobs every day in this country when they become mothers. meanwhile, if they do keep their jobs, there is the pressure on women that they must be working 40 hours a week and still fulfill societal expectations of housecleaning... and then they STILL are mothers. indeed, women are often expected to hold a job and be mothers, because how else are you going to make ends meet in this economy?

motherhood is seen as a gross inconvenience in this country from the POV of the market and within society it is seen as nearly impossible. I was walking through a museum a few months ago and happened upon an exhibit of an idealized family from the 1960's. there were some facts, however. at the age of 24, the average male in this country was making enough money to own a home and support three non-working members of his family... all that, with just a high school diploma. and don't even get me started on single-mothers and their general situation! we live in an anti-mother, anti-family society... maybe not what they're telling you on television, but it's the reality when you look at the economic facts on the ground. and I see no reason as this not being a valid rallying cry for the poor and dejected. if we could see family - whatever that form is - as a right that everyone has, then we can start building communities again. if we see motherhood as an honored and beloved position in society, maybe we can stop shoving them out of boardrooms and into working mcdonalds drive-thru windows, which incidentally probably have more flexible scheduling options.

also I disagree with your assertion that third-world women are any more dependent on men than first-world women are. it's a class issue. if you are upper strata bourgeois in most any society you have freedom and independence that women from lower economic castes do not have. as much as we have convinced ourselves in the first world that we have it so much better than XYZ, we are still almost totally dependent on men for most of our lives. one could examine the phenomenon of "strong-mothers" in mediterranean communities, wherein a woman puts her hopes and allegiance on her son and not her husband (and vice-versa) as a reaction to this arrangement. and we have ways of coping ourselves. but as long as I can go make more money stripping than working in most other industries at my age and stage of beauty, I am just as crushed underfoot by my sex as any other woman in the world who could get married "to make ends meet".

as for this specifically, I think I addressed how I'm not trying to imply that a woman's place is in the home. as to why I am focusing on it, I am focusing on it because it is such a major issue for global women, as I went into in length earlier in this post. by no means am I attacking the validity and agency of women who cannot or choose not to have families. after all, mothers are parts of our lives whether or not we become mothers ourselves. we have mothers, or we are seen as mothers-to-be. mothers happen to be a cornerstone of most societies, and mothers are certainly among the most vulnerable as well. instead of attacking motherhood or the institutions you see as "constructing" motherhood - and I am still not sure of what you mean by this, as it is an institution that has been around since the beginning of history, I say we reclaim it. everyone benefits from seeking a better place in the world for motherhood, and seeking basic prenatal and maternity care for all women is a good start. seeking fair labor benefits for mothers is a good start, too. this is a goal that very few could sniff at and many could agree on. once again my main point is that we should work within our communities and collaborate on a voluntary level globally. and I see motherhood as possibly being one of those things women across the world could collaborate on, because.. as tupac once said:

and since we all came from a woman
got our name from a woman
and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
why we rape our women
do we hate our women?



okay where i'm getting the coercion thing from is not in any sense a literal gun-to-the-head sort of deal. but that is not the only kind of coercion that exists -- although you blithely dismissed the existence/severity/consequence of social pressure with an inlaw joke a couplefew posts back so idk if there's a whole lot to be said there beyond 'no, you're wrong'

but: society is & has been organized for the benefit of men, at the expense of women. making the rearing of children -- a full-time, on-call, labor-intensive job -- 'women's work' instead of something to be shared by both responsible parties is one of the primary ways women can be held back to the advantage of men, especially if you tie that to economic dependence. either a woman with a child works another job (or two, or...) on top of what is already possibly one of the most difficult occupations there is, or she depends on someone else, generally speaking, a man, to provide for her so she can work just the one job. the former is horrendously difficult, and the latter... not an equal partnership by any stretch, one which has been notably easy for men to pull out of for most of history, and when men who have done so have been forced to help provide for the child (not the woman), it has usually been a token payment rather than a meaningful contribution. who on earth would make a truly free & informed choice to subject herself to this?

you're right that this dependence on men is rooted in class, but it is a class issue that disproportionately affects women & so is a specifically feminist concern as well as a general decent-freaking-human-being thing. the power disparity between men & women is huge enough that it is really, really difficult to say that any woman makes a totally free choice to enter into a relationship at all, children or no (this is what dworkin was talking about with the all piv sex is rape stuff). and when you add children into the question and then make them the near-complete responsibility of women, that gap doesn't get smaller!

and the thing is, accepting the duty of childrearing as something which has been rightfully loaded onto the shoulders of women is acquiescing -- accepting the legitimacy of the structure which has declared it so. working against poverty among women, say, or even better your example of domestic violence, is not going to get very far as long as the authority of men over women is taken without question. imo the first thing to work for from a family-centered perspective should probably be the equal participation of men in family life, and especially in raising children -- making men and women truly partners in at least one respect by sharing the responsibility instead of having it pushed off on one side

you have some good points w/ the market thing that i don't think i was interpreting correctly before -- yes, in the united states specifically children are more and more an economic decision (due to lack of basic stuff like maternity leave etc, yep, land of the free and all that) & there is considerable pressure on women to put career ahead of family and retaliation against women as a class not just for not doing so but for the mere possibility that they might do so -- but it seems like your reaction to this is to blame feminism rather than capitalism. how is this the fault of feminism?

#40
[account deactivated]
Care to share your thoughts? Sign up for tHE r H i z z o n E and Post your heart out, baby!