By Sarah A
I am a pro-life feminist.
Some feminists think that I shouldn't exist, or at least shouldn't call myself a feminist.
To not be constantly excluded, I have hidden my religious beliefs from fellow feminists.
Many pro-choice feminists argue that women should be able to choose. I don't oppose this. Unlike other pro-life people, I do not wish that the state would ban abortion. However, it doesn't mean I cannot have a religious conscience, saying that abortion is wrong. I don't judge others, but for me personally, abortion is wrong.
I wouldn't ever choose abortion myself, and that's a valid choice. Many other women are in the same boat, and I wish feminism would be more inclusive of us.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
We Need to Speak Up Against Sexism in Every Context
By Megan Liema
A recent article on Huffington Post ('Liberals Are Sexist Too', by Emily Peck, Mar 6 2017) made me think.
We often think of sexism as being associated with conservatives. But then, liberals and leftists have not been immune either, of course. The difference is that, many progressives have had a double standard, letting sexism go unchallenged as long as it originated from the left.
We need to put an end to this. Not only should sexism always be challenged, a double standard will only discredit any further action against sexism.
We don't need to be personally sympathetic to the politics of Sarah Palin or Kellyanne Conway. But still, sexism is sexism, and it is never acceptable. It should be as simple as this.
A recent article on Huffington Post ('Liberals Are Sexist Too', by Emily Peck, Mar 6 2017) made me think.
We often think of sexism as being associated with conservatives. But then, liberals and leftists have not been immune either, of course. The difference is that, many progressives have had a double standard, letting sexism go unchallenged as long as it originated from the left.
We need to put an end to this. Not only should sexism always be challenged, a double standard will only discredit any further action against sexism.
We don't need to be personally sympathetic to the politics of Sarah Palin or Kellyanne Conway. But still, sexism is sexism, and it is never acceptable. It should be as simple as this.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Why Marisa Kabas, Elizabeth Bruenig, Ivanka Trump, and Other 'Unwelcomed' Feminists will Save Feminism
By TaraElla
Marisa Kabas, Elizabeth Bruenig, and Ivanka Trump have all been made to feel unwelcome in feminist circles, despite being feminists themselves. Marisa Kabas, because she supports Israel. (I am personally neutral on this issue, as an East Asian it is inappropriate for me to take any stance, I believe.) Elizabeth Bruenig, because she is pro-life. And Ivanka Trump, because of her father.
The idea that feminist circles can make certain feminists feel unwelcome is quite ridiculous. The marriage equality movement certainly doesn't make supporters of marriage equality unwelcome, no matter what their other affiliations are. Same for the environmentalist movement. In fact, these movements practically celebrate conservatives who break ranks to support them. People passionate about marriage equality or the environment join those movements, and find mutual support in them. In feminism? That's not always the case, as the aforementioned people found out.
Feminism is very unfriendly to its 'outcasts', compared to other movements. Yet as these 'outcasts' refuse to stay quiet, and continue to speak up, it makes people think. Already, questions are being asked as to why feminism must be so unfriendly to people with certain views that have nothing to do with gender equality itself. After all, environmentalism doesn't demand its adherents support women's issues, and still functions quite well. Similarly, the marriage equality movement doesn't demand its adherents believe in climate change, and still has had many successes. In fact, the focus on the issue at hand and the inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds is what makes those movements strong. Why should feminism be any different?
We are on the verge of a strong feminist moment. But if we let feminism be hijacked by other issues, it will just lose relevance and die out.
Marisa Kabas, Elizabeth Bruenig, and Ivanka Trump have all been made to feel unwelcome in feminist circles, despite being feminists themselves. Marisa Kabas, because she supports Israel. (I am personally neutral on this issue, as an East Asian it is inappropriate for me to take any stance, I believe.) Elizabeth Bruenig, because she is pro-life. And Ivanka Trump, because of her father.
The idea that feminist circles can make certain feminists feel unwelcome is quite ridiculous. The marriage equality movement certainly doesn't make supporters of marriage equality unwelcome, no matter what their other affiliations are. Same for the environmentalist movement. In fact, these movements practically celebrate conservatives who break ranks to support them. People passionate about marriage equality or the environment join those movements, and find mutual support in them. In feminism? That's not always the case, as the aforementioned people found out.
Feminism is very unfriendly to its 'outcasts', compared to other movements. Yet as these 'outcasts' refuse to stay quiet, and continue to speak up, it makes people think. Already, questions are being asked as to why feminism must be so unfriendly to people with certain views that have nothing to do with gender equality itself. After all, environmentalism doesn't demand its adherents support women's issues, and still functions quite well. Similarly, the marriage equality movement doesn't demand its adherents believe in climate change, and still has had many successes. In fact, the focus on the issue at hand and the inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds is what makes those movements strong. Why should feminism be any different?
We are on the verge of a strong feminist moment. But if we let feminism be hijacked by other issues, it will just lose relevance and die out.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
The Crisis in Feminism: How it's in Danger of Becoming an Unthinking Cult
By Anonymous
Feminism has long been a movement of intellectuals, debating, sometimes heatedly, about issues. Some feminists believe liberal capitalism will help women get ahead, while others believe that socialism will help women more. Some feminists believe in the West exporting feminist values, while others believe in letting feminism develop organically within other cultures. Some feminists believe in affirmative action policies, while others do not. And so on.
It's a healthy thing to have so many ideas. It's a healthy and constructive thing to debate, and form even more ideas as a result.
Sadly, all this appears to be at risk right now. The poisonous idea that everyone must agree on everything, or that people should be included only if they conform to certain views, first took hold of some progressive movements some years ago. It looks like this idea is beginning to take over feminism. People are already saying things like there's no space for certain kinds of politics within feminism. How ridiculous. The only thing that feminism doesn't have space for is sexism.
There's still time to save feminism, the diverse feminism we've come to know and love. But we need to speak up now.
Feminism has long been a movement of intellectuals, debating, sometimes heatedly, about issues. Some feminists believe liberal capitalism will help women get ahead, while others believe that socialism will help women more. Some feminists believe in the West exporting feminist values, while others believe in letting feminism develop organically within other cultures. Some feminists believe in affirmative action policies, while others do not. And so on.
It's a healthy thing to have so many ideas. It's a healthy and constructive thing to debate, and form even more ideas as a result.
Sadly, all this appears to be at risk right now. The poisonous idea that everyone must agree on everything, or that people should be included only if they conform to certain views, first took hold of some progressive movements some years ago. It looks like this idea is beginning to take over feminism. People are already saying things like there's no space for certain kinds of politics within feminism. How ridiculous. The only thing that feminism doesn't have space for is sexism.
There's still time to save feminism, the diverse feminism we've come to know and love. But we need to speak up now.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Sorry Ana Tijoux, There's No Other Feminism
By Katie Bay
Chilean hip-hop artist Ana Tijoux recently called for 'another feminism', one specifically against capitalism.
But why would feminism be specifically against capitalism? Or, let's turn this around. Why would feminism be speicifically against socialism? It doesn't make sense, does it?
Some feminists are capitalists, others are socialists, and that's the way it is.
You can be both a feminist and a socialist, but you can't merge the two without excluding some women, and therefore diminishing feminism.
Feminism is for the empowerment of women, so women can have equal rights and choices as men in life. This is feminism. There is no other feminism, really.
Chilean hip-hop artist Ana Tijoux recently called for 'another feminism', one specifically against capitalism.
But why would feminism be specifically against capitalism? Or, let's turn this around. Why would feminism be speicifically against socialism? It doesn't make sense, does it?
Some feminists are capitalists, others are socialists, and that's the way it is.
You can be both a feminist and a socialist, but you can't merge the two without excluding some women, and therefore diminishing feminism.
Feminism is for the empowerment of women, so women can have equal rights and choices as men in life. This is feminism. There is no other feminism, really.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Should Feminists Boycott 'Beauty And The Beast'?
Guest Post by Megan Liema
With Disney's Beauty and the Beast hitting the cinemas soon, there's been a lot of talk about the feminist 'implications' of the film. A lot of this has centered on the character of Belle, played by Emma Watson. But the idea that Belle's relationship with the Beast is unhealthy is also being discussed a lot. Some people say that the relationship looks abusive, and some even say that Belle must have developed 'Stockholm Syndrome'. As a result, a few people have even said that, as feminists, we should boycott the movie.
My response? Relax people! It's just a story. 'Tale as old as time', really. It doesn't mean anything in particular, and doesn't need to be overanalysed. Just relax and enjoy the movie!
Being a feminist means supporting and fighting for equality. But we only need to fight the real fights in life, which is surely not every moment of life. Sometimes, we can just accept things as they are, too. There's nothing un-feminist about this.
With Disney's Beauty and the Beast hitting the cinemas soon, there's been a lot of talk about the feminist 'implications' of the film. A lot of this has centered on the character of Belle, played by Emma Watson. But the idea that Belle's relationship with the Beast is unhealthy is also being discussed a lot. Some people say that the relationship looks abusive, and some even say that Belle must have developed 'Stockholm Syndrome'. As a result, a few people have even said that, as feminists, we should boycott the movie.
My response? Relax people! It's just a story. 'Tale as old as time', really. It doesn't mean anything in particular, and doesn't need to be overanalysed. Just relax and enjoy the movie!
Being a feminist means supporting and fighting for equality. But we only need to fight the real fights in life, which is surely not every moment of life. Sometimes, we can just accept things as they are, too. There's nothing un-feminist about this.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Jessa Crispin may hate 'Choice Feminism', but We Love It. (And so do many women.)
Guest post by Katie Bay
Jessa Crispin has been getting a lot of publicity lately with her book 'Why I Am Not A Feminist', in which she heavily criticises 'choice feminism' and instead upholds collective action and socialism. Apparently, 'choice feminism' is so prevalent right now, and she hates it so much, she cannot identify as a feminist anymore.
So what is this evil 'choice feminism'? Turns out it's as simple as letting women choose what they want. Which is what feminism should be about, right?
Crispin does make a fair point about not every choice made by a woman automatically being feminist. For example, I would say that what I chose for lunch today was not a feminist choice. But then, feminism should be about making sure women are able to make the same choices as everyone else. So allowing women to go into business without fear of discrimination is indeed feminism, despite the (unrelated) fact that socialists are sceptical of capitalism. And not every choice women make need to be collective either, because men are not bound by the same 'collective' requirement, right? Nor would that make for a happy sisterhood. For example, some women want to be stay-at-home mothers, while others want to work 60 hours a week in a high flying business career, and still others want to work part time while pursuing a writing career. What's wrong with that?
I get that Crispin really hates capitalism and wants us to be all socialists, but it wouldn't be gender equality if women couldn't choose capitalism (because men can). Like everyone else, Crispin is entitled to make her case for socialism. But she shouldn't demand women support socialism any more than men. After all, socialism and capitalism are not gendered concepts.
Jessa Crispin has been getting a lot of publicity lately with her book 'Why I Am Not A Feminist', in which she heavily criticises 'choice feminism' and instead upholds collective action and socialism. Apparently, 'choice feminism' is so prevalent right now, and she hates it so much, she cannot identify as a feminist anymore.
So what is this evil 'choice feminism'? Turns out it's as simple as letting women choose what they want. Which is what feminism should be about, right?
Crispin does make a fair point about not every choice made by a woman automatically being feminist. For example, I would say that what I chose for lunch today was not a feminist choice. But then, feminism should be about making sure women are able to make the same choices as everyone else. So allowing women to go into business without fear of discrimination is indeed feminism, despite the (unrelated) fact that socialists are sceptical of capitalism. And not every choice women make need to be collective either, because men are not bound by the same 'collective' requirement, right? Nor would that make for a happy sisterhood. For example, some women want to be stay-at-home mothers, while others want to work 60 hours a week in a high flying business career, and still others want to work part time while pursuing a writing career. What's wrong with that?
I get that Crispin really hates capitalism and wants us to be all socialists, but it wouldn't be gender equality if women couldn't choose capitalism (because men can). Like everyone else, Crispin is entitled to make her case for socialism. But she shouldn't demand women support socialism any more than men. After all, socialism and capitalism are not gendered concepts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)