laceblade | Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future

Current Mood: pissed off

Entry tags:

Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future

We read this book for my non-genre book club.

In general, this book about Third Wave Feminism promises to analyze what's up with Second vs. Third Waves, criticize popular culture, set an agenda of goals, and essentially do what its title suggests: write a feminist manifesto.

While I found most of the book at least relatively interesting, our book club in general (myself included) disliked it because its structure was so disorganized and we felt that it was too broad to really address issues that we wanted it to address. It was also irritating that the authors continuously name-dropped their close friends/acquaintances/former jobs. For a book that's trying to grab people who might not yet refer to themselves as feminists, it seems to almost go out of its way to make it so that readers cannot identify with the authors.

On the positive side, reading this book got me to buy my first copies of the magazines Bitch and Bust.

I was annoyed because the book constantly made references to (apparently common) feminist texts and people and events who I have never read/heard of. Yeah, it sucks that I was never taught about them in school, but it makes this supposedly introductory text inaccessible to me.

The book did an okay job at addressing issues that affect people of color and people who identify as LGBT. The book made a lot of good points, like Gerda Lerner's note that repeatedly throughout history, women keep learning a feminist history, and then losing it - we keep cycling through the same practices over and over, and must learn our own history to propel our progression.

What pissed me off the most about this book was that every time the authors discussed a feminist who had said anything even remotely positively pro-life, they wrote the woman off as not being a real feminist at all. This is troubling to me for obvious reasons - I am Catholic and pro-life, and I am also a feminist.

To disagree with someone and then tell them that because of their thought process, you have the power to take away their ability to identify as a feminist? Firstly, it's not your power to begin with; secondly, what the hell kind of a feminist are you?

I'd like to reference RaceFail here, because it was a huge, sprawling discussion that took place in public. Constantly throughout RaceFail, people were told, "Dude, you said something racist." The accused would freak out, saying, "I'm not racist! I'm not racist!" and the accuser would say, "I'm not calling you racist; I'm not saying you're not anti-racist; I'm saying that you said/did something racist."

In that example, people doing the calling out were not trying to steal parts of people's identities, not even labeling them as racist people. They were zeroing in on what was said, dissecting it, and trying to teach.

If you want to teach and try to change my mind, go ahead and do that. But slapping me in the face and telling me that I can't be a feminist at all is not going to change my mind: in fact, it'll probably make me hate you just a bit.

On the thread of changing minds, what's up with this strategy, anyway? Don't feminists want allies who get it to be infiltrating everywhere? We should want feminists in government, in churches, occupying spaces and making connections with people in places that most feminists don't want to be in/bother with.

So for someone to try and rob me of part of my identity because we disagree on one issue? I really don't know what to say, except for, "Well, fuck you, too."

I know I had a problem with this in Jessica Valenti's Full Front Feminism, too. One day I'll find current feminist books just for me! :O

Sometimes Necessary Abortion Disclaimer
This post is not actually about the ethics of abortion! If you would like to participate in such a discussion, please host one in your own blog. This post is about identities and the naming of groups and a book I read. Thanks.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I read Manifesta several years ago, when I was first really learning about feminism. I agree with your review, and of its disorganization.

My impression is that the authors come from a particular feminist context in which being pro-choice is central to being feminist. For them, pro-choice is THE feminist issue, clustered with shattering the glass ceiling and women's body image as constructed by the media.

I find this objectionable, because by organizing their feminist consciousness around these issues, they are not inclusive in a real way. This is the brand of feminism that we see on feministing.com (which I don't frequent), and it's very white and tends to be straight (though not always). I think that's indicative of the extent to which Manifesta's feminism is inclusive of queer, anti-racist, and anti-ableist critiques--they might point to them, but these are not, at heart, considered their concerns.

I think Manifesta is dated now, and I think it's a product of that time when feminists weren't quite sure where we were going next. correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't have much about the internet, does it? I think the third wave has rolled past Manifesta already, or at least, I *hope* it has.

As for the name-dropping, yes, that is annoying. I think they were trying to prove their cred to the old guard, there. But you're right, it is off-putting. Also, if you were ten years older you probably *would* have been conversant with Ms. or Bust--now, we have the internet! Which sucks for Ms. and Bust.

And yes. I think feminists come in a much broader variety than Richards and Baumgardner are willing to accept. They're just two people that happened to publish a book--it doesn't mean they are the gatekeepers of who gets to be feminist or not. Nobody does. That's what's awesome about feminism.

Unfortunately I know where you're coming from here & I'll keep my remarks brief to lower the likelihood of an abortion debate breaking out. Essentially, the problem is summed up in the labels "pro-life" & "pro-choice". To say you're "pro-life" implies that the people who disagree with you don't value human life. To say you're "pro-choice" implies that the people who disagree with you don't value women's rights. Unfortunately, people on both sides value women's rights & human life. They just disagree on the status of a developing foetus as human life.

I don't necessarily think that the abortion and feminism issue is necessarily analogous to Racefail. If anything, one could argue that you're reacting like the people who get called out for a racist statement - like I said last night, I don't believe being anti-choice is feminist, regardless of whether you're personally pro-life. It's not just a matter of semantics, because I know lots of people who are pro-life personally but not anti-choice politically; meaning, their personal choice is not to have an abortion but the law allows for choices based on any criteria (spiritual or otherwise). Does this mean that you are anti-feminist? Not any more than someone who makes a racist statement is necessarily a racist.

You're in a bit of a quagmire here, because you're saying that you don't want someone to restrict your identity as feminist (on a topic that has a long and deep history of being connected to feminism), and yet that is exactly what you're suggesting: you want to tell a pro-choice woman that they can't be pro-choice, when that is a fundamental part of their feminist experience.

I definitely agree with

were_duck that abortion is not the only agenda of feminism, but I do believe that it's a central one; third-wave feminism has expanded and broadened significantly from second-wave, and is much more pluralistic than Manifesta would have us believe (which is one of the critiques I was hoping the authors would make of second-wave feminism), but I don't think that this means we need to abandon what were the central pillars of second-wave feminism (especially when the problems of reproductive freedom aren't "fixed" yet). So yes, while Baumgardner and Richards made the mistake of assuming that their readership would be "on board" with them when it comes to abortion, I don't think they speak for Feminism (with a capitol F) in that regard. Like I said: I don't think being anti-choice is feminist (and again, I'm using the term not as a semantic weapon but because there is a logistical distinction), but that's not the same thing as saying anti-choice people can't be feminists.

To disagree with someone and then tell them that because of their thought process, you have the power to take away their ability to identify as a feminist?

I think you've captured a fine example of the perpetual threat of fail that exists in all conversations. You'd think conversations in defense of identity and social justice would be immune to this, but it just goes to show the fervid nature of the pointed finger.

I think that self-identification is a problem for a lot of groups. You don't want to end up alienating people and fragmenting the movement over side issues, but neither do you want to stretch a label until it becomes meaningless.

Example of the first: A few years ago, the American Library Association passed a resolution against the Iraq war. I'm against the war too, but it's not an library issue, it's not an information freedom issue, and conservative librarians have enough reason to feel alienated from the profession without something like that.

And, on the other hand, I have seen people try to claim the "feminist" label for themselves while insisting that men and women have separate but equal roles in life, and raising children and keeping house is the Very Special Role that women have.
At some point you have to say -- and this goes for some of the people who were very loudly identifying themselves as Not A Racist Really I'm Not in RaceFail, too -- "There's a contradiction between believing X, or doing X, and calling yourself Y."

But I think that feminism has to have enough room for people to live out those contradictions, and wrestle with them, without automatically shutting out people who have a commitment to women's rights but don't line up 100% with the orthodoxy.

"You want to tell a pro-choice woman that she can't be pro-choice"

I disagree. I don't think that's what

mystickeeper is saying here at all--what she's saying is, "You can't tell me that I'm not feminist because I don't agree with you on this topic."

mystickeeper and I have known one another for years, she knows I'm adamantly pro-choice and believe abortion should be legal, and she has never once told me that I "can't be pro-choice", even though we hold fervently opposite beliefs on this issue. For the record, nor have I told her that she can't be a feminist, which is, I think, what she objects to from Baumgardner and Richards.

I get where you're going semantically, here, and I appreciate it. I even agree that for many feminists, abortion and access to reproductive options is central to their feminist identity.

But, there are myriad ways to be feminist, and

mystickeeper works hard to advocate for the rights of women. Just because she doesn't agree with *most* feminists on the specific issue of abortion doesn't negate her feminist identity.

See, I was actually kind of surprised by how little the book dealt with body image and fat acceptance - we talked about that last night, too.

Thanks for weighing in on the rest of it, too! It's nice to hear what people beyond the book club think about what we read, too.

Yeah, I agree that the naming on both sides is kind of unfortunate. I've heard people refer to the pro-life side as "anti-choice," which makes a bit more sense, but I usually label myself as "pro-life" just so that people know what I'm talking about.

I tried to set up the comparison to RaceFail in a way that made it clear that I was comparing myself to a person getting called on their Fail, so I hope that that was clear.

I get what you're saying about anti-choice vs. pro-life. To me, people who would personally choose to never have an abortion, but support women's ability to choose politically = pro-choice. That's what the labels mean to me, at least. They are politicized terms. I understand that the terms are less than desirable (see

freemonoid's comment above), but I get confused when you toss in words like "anti-choice." To me, those who are anti-choice = pro-life, and those who are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice are.....pro-choice.

I kind of disagree with the rest of your analogy (me = person who says something racist, but isn't necessarily ACTUALLY racist). People who scream, "But I'm not racist!" are saying it because they did something racist and don't want other people to think that they are (racist). I am personally identifying with a belief, and stating straight out that it's what I believe/feel. It's related to how I identify, how I feel, how I define myself, than it is to what other people think I am/how other people label me. Which is why I get pissed off when people try to take the labels I've adopted for myself, and tell me that I cannot wear them.

People can BE pro-choice all they want to be. I'm not asking to restrict the way people think or identify politically. That would be really....weird. Their ability to HAVE a choice, yes, you could argue that, but I'm not arguing that people cannot BE pro-choice.

So, yeah - I don't want someone to restrict my identity as a feminist, and I won't try to restrict which way you identify on political/religious/moral issues, either. The point is that even if I were to vote on abortion in some kind of national referendum (as I clearly don't let my views on abortion dictate solely who I vote for in elections), and I voted against the pro-choice movement, I am still not telling pro-choice people, "You can't be pro-choice!"
Yes, I'm telling them, "I don't think that you can have an abortion," but I am not taking away their IDENTITY, the label of pro-choice, which is a political opinion, not an act. I'm not telling people they can't choose their own labels, that they can't think their own thoughts, that they can't decide for themselves how to label their thoughts - but that is what you are telling me.

That is a very insightful comment!

I like the term anti-choice as opposed to pro-life in part because a) I'm using a different criterion for what constitutes life (i.e. I'm not pro-death) and b) I feel that it more honestly reflects the fact that people are working actively to restrict the choices for others, as opposed to simply being pro-life for their personal choice.

Okay, I get what you're saying, but to me restricting abortion rights is an anti-feminist move. So you're disregarding what I consider important as a feminist. I can respect that your religion is against abortion, and you're making that choice for spiritual reasons, not feminist ones-- which is totally okay. But it's not a feminist choice.

But she has stated that she would support legislation that outlawed abortion - how is that not limiting my ability to be pro-choice? What value is being pro-choice if I don't have any choices? If that is a central tenet of my feminist identity, which it is, what does that mean?

I never said she can't be a feminist, or that her anti-choice stance negates her feminist identity. I said that being pro-life is not a feminist choice - it can be a spiritual one, or a political one, but it's not feminist. That doesn't make her anti-feminist as a person (which is why I'd agree that there is a similarity with Racefail, if not the one she made), and it doesn't negate her feminist work (which I stated in the last comment).

Yes, there are a myriad ways to be feminist, but I also agree with

takumashii (who maybe said what I wanted to but in a more careful and diplomatic way) that at a certain point "There's a contradiction between believing X, or doing X, and calling yourself Y." And maybe that just means that you acknowledge that your impetus for being pro-life is religious, and that this contradicts the feminist movement, but in that case your faith trumps feminism. As I said, I don't think Baumgardner and Richards speak for Feminism The Movement (TM) in that regard, but you also have to look at the entire context of the feminist and reproductive rights movements to understand where they are coming from, which I don't feel was done here.

I really don't know how to argue the point with you any more beyond this.

I'm sorry you think it's not a feminist choice, but to me, it's murder, so it's not really a choice. I don't know what to tell you.

You don't think it's murder, and you believe that my faith is a choice, which is why we will forever disagree.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your faith, or your opinion on abortion. Whether or not abortion is murder is a matter of your faith, and not feminism. I didn't expect to come out of this discussion with either of us agreeing on abortion, but rather was trying to put reproductive rights in the broader context of the feminist movement, for which it is and has been a central tenet.

You responded to my comment below that you "get what [I'm] saying, but to me restricting abortion rights is an anti-feminist move." But then in this comment you contradict that by saying that my hypothetically voting pro-life restricts your ability to identify as pro-choice. So do you see what I'm saying, or not?
To reiterate: What I'm saying is, identifying as pro-choice doesn't mean having the ability to have an abortion. It's what you wish to accomplish by being pro-choice, but abortion is an action, a noun, not the actual belief itself.

I do remember our conversation last night, and I remember the one about feminist choices - it's how the conversation started - but you DID say that people who would vote to restrict abortion laws for other women are not feminists. I remember this distinctly, because it's the point at which I put my book down and stopped participating in the conversation.

I think I've said this before, but my faith and my political beliefs are inseparable to me. I am pro-gay rights because I believe that God created all people equally, and because I think that the institution that makes up my Church has interpreted the Bible incorrectly. To me, it's not a contradiction of MY faith, but a contradiction of the beliefs of the people who run it.

I can't parse out what are political beliefs and which ones are religious. I don't weigh them on a scale, and if the "liberal choice" or the "conservative choice" happens to be the one I agree with, it doesn't mean that for that issue, I decided that faith > feminism or that feminism > faith.

I'm approaching feminist from a different lens, yes, but the fact that I disagree with lots of feminists doesn't make me less feminist.

I understand the context of where Baumgardner/Richards are coming from, thanks. I didn't say, "What up, people? Agree with everything I think and watch me ignore history!" I said (basically), "Yeah, I disagree with most of you on this one issue, but it doesn't mean that I'm not one of you, too." I'm not really sure what the end of your last paragraph is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that I don't understand the history surrounding Roe v. Wade or the Second Wave?

I guess what I meant was that you keep iterating that it's an anti-feminist choice, and that I'm putting my "faith hat" on to come to this decision (belief). It's you trying to persuade me of this that I feel we can't agree on (not abortion itself, I thought that was obvious), but more that while you think it's an anti-feminist choice that I'm consciously making, for me, it's not a choice - faith is not a choice, for me, nor is my belief in God or the Catholic faith - to me, it's what is. I"m not expecting it to make loads of sense if you don't share faith, hence, the disagreement.

I just made this point in a comment above, but it's applicable here as well: I can't separate out my faith from my feminism; the two are inextricably intertwined.

I know I'm not the first woman in history to identify as both pro-life and a feminist.

You're not, of course, but the vast, vast majority of feminists are pro-choice- abortion rights have been a central pillar of the feminist movement for a host of reasons. I don't mean to come across as saying that a "faith hat" is less valid, because I don't feel that way - we all use a range of criteria to make decisions about the world every day (clearly, you disagree with the Church on gay marriage, for example). I don't share your faith, but I do hold spiritual beliefs. And of course the things that define us - our race, our gender, our politics, our sexuality, our politics, all of it - mix and combine to influence how we see the world and how we live in it. As a scientist and a spiritual person, I hold certain beliefs about the world, and when the data buck up against my personal beliefs, I have to wrestle with that. And in the end, what I believe is a personal matter, and it may be more influenced by the data, or by my relationship with God, or whatever, but the world is full of contradictions and we have to navigate through them. So while you're a Catholic, and pro-life, and feminist, to me being anti-choice is anti-feminist, even if YOU are still a feminist.

I disagree, strongly. I believe in protecting the right for women to get an abortion - by being pro-life, you can not have an abortion regardless of the law. I would fight for the right regardless of whether I ever decided I would have one myself - which is a separate matter entirely.

And I did NOT say that they weren't feminists - I said, which I remember because I was distinctly trying to speak with complete respect and regard for you,that the CHOICE was anti-feminist, not that the CHOOSERS weren't feminist.

Like

takumashii said: at what point have you broadened the definition to the point where it has no meaning? You want me to acknowledge that to you, abortion is murder - which I do. To me, restricting reproductive rights is anti-feminist, based on my personal values system and what I understand the feminist movement to mean. And I still love you and welcome you as a card-carrying feminist.

In the same paragraph, you are saying that you love and welcome me as a card-carrying feminist and implied that I have broadened the definition of feminism to the point that it no longer has a meaning.

Am I misinterpreting these two points, and how they don't seem to belong together?

I don't know how else to say it than how I've said it a dozen times now: you can be a feminist and still make an anti-feminist choice, in the same way that I can be anti-racist and sometimes say a racist thing. You can't broaden the definition of feminism to say that being pro-life is feminist, even if you are a feminist in every other aspect of your life.

One of the things about feminism is, I think, that there isn't ~~an orthodoxy~~ a single set of issues that you can really point to. All you've got are the principles that a) women are people, and b) as people, have the right to equal say in the determining of their own fate.

Not sure that I'm making my point very clearly. I'm agreeing with you, really, that feminism has room for people to live out contradictions. That's an excellent way to describe it, really.

I maintain that much of the public debate which occurs in the media for the pro-life position is misogynist is nature, and rarely touches on how we define "life."

I'm not saying that a pro-life position is inherently misogynistic. But I am saying it's pretty easy to get that impression by watching too much TV.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future

no subject

Heh...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Heh...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Heh...