Unburn Your Bras! (If You Want To!) (it's Totally Up To You!)

Some women do not like wearing bras, and that's cool with me.  But as someone who does, I wish people would stop inventing reasons to disparage the practice.  Like Gwyneth Paltrow digging up that whole myth that bras contribute to breast cancer (discussed here).

The whole "bra burning" feminist stereotype has its toesies in fact, with some women suggesting bras are only worn to confirm to a beauty ideal and pointing to cultures where sagging boobs are considered normal.  Of course some of these cultures also make women stay in a hut while menstruating, thus illustrating that "traditional in subsistence cultures" is not synonymous with wise.

Ancient Greek breastband

Bras are not worn purely to prevent sagging, they have an even longer history of being used, especially by female athletes, to prevent movements that can distract from or impair performance physical tasks (a.k.a. "jiggling").  This suggests that said jiggling might be unpleasant for active women for reasons other than internalized patriarchal self-loathing.

In fact the centuries old Stethodesme or Fascia (cloth or leather breastbands) were essentially a more inconvenient version of the bra.  If western culture had not headed off down the path of corsetry (a.k.a. binding things that don't jiggle) we might actually have developed a decent sports bra by now.

For those not disturbed by their jiggling, that's cool.  Personally I prefer to do without it and that is a totally valid choice, thank you very much.

On Meryl Streep not being a Feminist

When asked whether she was a feminist Meryl Streep reportedly said.  “I am a humanist, I am for nice, easy balance.”

Which is all very clever but also some Grade A bullshit. Why does supporting equal rights for people of any gender have to be the philosophy that dare not speak its name... for fear of sounding "unbalanced" (dare I suggest: "hysterical"?).

The removal of bigotry does not leave a person unbalanced. 

There is no degree of equality that upsets the balance of the world.

There is nothing at all that prevents a person from being a humanist and a feminist--nor any basis in which these are semantically interchangeable terms.  The attempt to make them so is just a very sophisticated why of saying that old piece of nonsense: I'm not a feminist, but....

Feminism

Feminism is

the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities*

so any time you say

 "I am not a feminist, but..."

You are saying that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE

 that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

I am woman

And if I don't feel like roaring, I am not bloody going to do it.

Peta doesn't give a damn about your so-called "feminism".

'[via Sociological Images]

Oh... but it gets worse:

[via the Bilerico Project]

Where have you gone Gloria Steinem, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you....

See also:

• Feminism, PETA, & Montréal

After Feminism

People seem to like talk talk about being "post" (after) a movement. But what would post-feminism be? Can you be over, or after, liberation? Certainly not while sexism continues to be pervasive in most cultures and overt slavery in some. But I think Eve Ensler, author of the Vagina Monologues is quoted as saying:

"I don’t know about language. Feminism. Does the word get in our way or bring us together? If the word is not working for people, then maybe it’s time to find another word. On the other hand, women gave their life, time and energy for a word, and fought for our rights and dignity and our jobs — and fought for the rights of women to speak out. The women who are against feminism wouldn’t even have a platform today if there hadn’t been feminists."

And I think this is right. We cannot be "post-feminism" in the sense of feminism as a mission, goal or movement ceasing to existed. But I think it is being integrated into a wider mission of social justice which encompasses a greater and more inclusive, and less combative, sense of fairness.

Women cannot be a group treated in isolation because no person is just a woman and a perspective of fairness and equity embraces gender, nationality, disability, sexuality, race, species, environment and so much more. We do not have to choose which fight to fight because no one should have to wait in line for equal treatment.

And a fine balance needs to be maintained between being prescriptive about trivia versus persistent about injustice even in its implicit forms. There is a place for levity and a pace for solemnity--to give a trivial example when I do my shopping I find it funny as hell that someone would call their yogurt "Brown cow fruit on the bottom". Because what I want to see on the bottom of My yogurt sure as hell isn;lt "brown cow-fruit".



But I do think that calling a yogurt "Cultural Revolution" is part of a pervasive trivializing of the suffering of some groups we neither know nor care very much about. In the 60s many western nations were having an area of liberation and opening up of possibilities. In China The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a power struggle during which poor choice in government lead directly to the loss of over 20 million live to famine and as a response to that a new movement ruthlessly suppressed the intelligentsia (with torture and work camps) and lead to the widespread distraction of cultural and religious organisation and relics and undermining of human rights and deaths of another half million people. Naming a luxury food product on this way seems appallingly glib to me.

Feminism is a part of our present and a part of our past--a part of our history which we should never move back towards. So even if we move beyond the narrow confines of the term "feminism" is should not be treated as a joke or a derogatory term. The traditional tendency to take things serious is because even trival reflection of indifference to suffering can be very telling about the principles at the heart of our culture. And that is what needs to be opposed and changed, just as much now as ever.

I come not to praise feminism...

Further to my post yesterday, here is a more general thought about feminism. For feminism to work it has to be a grass roots, 'common sense' belief. And to be so widely accepted it needs to be a brand. It needs to be attractive, make people feel good, and be embraced even by people who actually benefit from the alternative (patriarchy etc).

Take for example, that only 3-4 percent of people believe enough in animal rights to stop eating animals--but a much larger group will support specific bans on fur and testing, and donate to groups like PETA (donations up 11% in 2008), and a majority of people now agree animals have some kinds of rights. From a strict rights/vegan point of view this might be seen as hypocrisy--but from a pragmatic point of view HSUS presented a ballot, and 65% of people voted against tiny veal, hen and sow enclosures. By mobilising grass roots emotional support they got something done.

Organic farming used to be just for those committed to the entire philosophy. Now it is a niche market embraced by many farmers purely for economic reasons. But that means more organic farms, and more people with access to organic products. Once the idea that animal abuse was a sentinel for abuse and violence was not accepted, not everyone seems to know this, including politician introducing and supporting bills.

All of these ideas came from a core group who devoted their lives to them, and were then embraced by large group who support them out of a general feeling that it was good, or healthy, or kind. They were honed by the minority, but ultimately implemented by the majority. Most people aren't going to devote their lives or entire budget to a cause--they certainly aren't going to align every act, belief and political vote to a detailed, uniform agenda. And any movement that required this is never going to truly break through.

Look also at the breakthrough with environmentalism, showing it wasn't just a liberal agenda is--it's the planet, stupid. It is a conservative issue, a religious issue, an atheist issue, an economic issue, a kids' issue, an industry issue... it is an issue for the species. You can be green and be any other damn thing you like, because it is going to take all of us. The scientific facts of climate change reach the majority only when they were stripped of a clutter of other issues and agendas, and connected to feelings of doing good for humankind, doing the right thing together.

Human rights are the same. If men aren't allowed to be feminist, then feminism isn't the solution to gender rights. If men can't be victims (e.g. of violence, severed parental rights, workplace stress etc etc) under feminism... ditto. I am not falling for the 'poor white man' rhetoric here, but a gender prejudice should be accepted regardless of the gender or the severity of the issue--just as violence is violence whether it is domestic, public... or against animals. Gender rights are about males, females and any other status (intersex, androgynous etc)--to have equal rights we all have to support it under a banner that is politically and religiously inclusive--including the right to submit to religious dictates, be a sexual submissive and any other damn thing a grown person might decide to do. If a feminist has to be pro-abortion, anti-Republican, pro-gay, vegetarian and counter-culture then I can join, I will be joining a group that is, and always will be, in a minority.

If the goal is to offer real equal rights, the nature of these rights must rest firmly on an accurate understanding of what gender is and isn't--and an inclusive, emotionally warm movement to honor the innate moral worth of every person. Real feminism must include people with whom, on every other issue under the sun, we might disagree. I have a deep commitment to feminism, but the mainstream of the movement seems to be dominated by vagino-retentive femino-centrism and a new generation of pretentious female chauvinist bitchery--now busy sparring with each other to the exclusion of most other activities.

It is more important to have rights, than to be right. And I am seriously beginning to wonder whether the need for gender awareness and true human rights can be carried any further under the feminist banner, which seems so dominated by the need to denigrate the language and positions of those trying to embrace the central mission without joining the cult of feminism or neo-feminism and following it as a creed of speech, dress and attitude more demanding that orthodox religion. I honor what the movement has done, but not what is has become, because it is increasingly adding a degree of truth to some of what the male chauvinist idiots have always said about the stereotypical feminist--humorless, naive, nit-picking and hostile to pragmatism and compromise.

My mother's feminism and my sister's feminism are not enough. I need a belief that can be my brother's, son's or husband's feminism... my priest's, my dog's, my boss's, my enemy's. I need a feminism that walks the walk when it comes to honoring they way in which all people are equal, no matter how different they may be. I come not to praise feminism, nor to bury it. In fact unless some changes are made, when it comes to doing my best to work for a fairer society, I may not come to "feminism" at all--and I doubt I am the only one.

I'm Not a Feminist but....

I am a feminist. I can tell because every time someone says 'I'm not a feminist but...' I feel like smacking them. I don't think gender has moral value. I think the majority of beliefs about gender transmitted by pop culture are seriously off base. And I think people experience limitations due to their gender--both externally and internally imposed.

But you might note that none of those statements are about being a woman per se. They are about gender, and about being gender-aware. I think that we are almost ready to start moving beyond an exclusive focus on the civil rights of females. I think we can continue that struggle whilst considering the issue of gender, of gender-typical conduct, sexuality and society in a somewhat 'broader' sense (so to speak).

And while I do not in any sense reject the notion of feminism as a sub-set of that issue, I do not think I am alone on feeling a little impatience with being limited to feminism as the discipline that is on the forefront of the debate. Case in point, arguments of little substance that seem to echo across the femiverse. Ms. magazine puts a super-hero-styled Obama on the cover, and include a matching wall poster. Y'know, I get that this suggests Ms. readers will/should be Obama fangrrls. But whatever. This isn't even as unimportant as the apocryphal hill of beans--it is at best a bean (maybe a bean and a half, or even a has-bean).

But as Girl in Short Shorts notes: "Of course, feminists get offended about almost anything." So we must, it seems, drag out the same old issues--whether a man can be feminist, whether Obama claims to be one (and whether he really is or isn't), whether Hillary supporters are being insulted (or not), yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah. Often with a heaping aside of gender insult (i.e. "Panties in a wad", etc) and renewed debates about what feminism really is.

Why, in a world where genders are socially constructed and even biological male- versus female-ness is not seen as a strict dichotomy, are feminist debates typically framed as two points of view (within feminism, and a few dinosaurs still arguing against it--like dull and duller here). It is also implicit that one point of view is totally right and the other wrong, with endless debates about intent and outcome. Even if this method of discussion could determine anything, like something as basic as what feminism really is, I am not sure I could bring myself to care.

Can't we please move on?