Having said that…
- Any action or logic that impedes upon personal autonomy; disregarding the intersectionality of oppressions (ie black women in the 2nd wave, etc).
- Inability to be called out gracefully: to stop, listen, and consider the ways your own words and actions impact others
- Projecting your beliefs about “objective truth” onto the world at large (though this is obviously sticky–see the intro to Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?”)
I see feminism as often ending up conflated with conservative models of thought, righteous and certain of its own moral and philosophical rectitude/absolution. Scary.
I don’t think Slut Machine is a bad feminist, as she was crucified for earlier this month–but we all know she ain’t alone.
See Christina Hoff Sommers. Love her, but not because I especially agree with what she has to say. Why? Because she’s a gender essentialist; she radically privileges “objectivity” over the ephemeral ‘truths’ of human experience, inconvenient and slippery little fucks that they are. I’m sorry you can’t handle the mysterious and undefinable nature of the universe lady, but let’s be real: essentialism and the myth of objective reality is the cornerstone of ~*patriarchy*~. And you don’t have to be a feminist to understand that patriarchy has no mutually exclusive link to biological/constructed gender, and does a fine job of “harming our young men” right along side everyone else.
That said, do you know I almost felt like jumping off a goddamn building when I learned that she had very recently gone on long-term leave from the philosophy dept. at Clark University just before I attended? Had she still been there, maybe I would have wasted a little more time before flunking out. I may very critically disagree with her underlying worldview, but that in no way renders her intellectually useless; she may be a sorta misogynist (hey, so am I anytime I pick up Cosmo), but she’s still a sharp fucking broad. Oh god, I get a boner just thinking about the arguments we would have.
I regard Paglia as one of the most treasured thinkers of the last century, even though I think about 63% of what she says is off-the-wall bonkers. I won’t apologise for how much I think she rules. Not only do I think she’s theorizing some next level shit, but I see her as an awesome example of somebody who maintains her sense of humor and irreverence, as well as a very solid sense of self that is not damaged by criticism or self-consciousness.
And in the same way, I also hold Andrea Dworkin’s work close to my heart. I have a certain nostalgic reverence for her, and the transformative power her writing had over me at a very tender era in my life. Having said that, I think she’s so incredibly wrong it blows my mind. What she wasn’t wrong about, however, and why she’s still a brilliant mind, was her understanding of the power that fantasy has to orient the way we perceive and experience the world, something Somers, and to some extent Paglia and others, fail to adequately appreciate.
I do think the “bad feminist” slur is used too freely and at often inappropriate moments. But there are some contexts in which I don’t feel I should have to function as somebody’s teacher, nor do I feel like being weighed down by discussion around the very basic values I’m usually operating under at all times. For the purposes of higher level analysis, I think it’s useful to create a certain intellectual space with exclusionary values–if you can’t hang, then go find somewhere you can. We all need our own spaces: men, THE QUEERS, pocs, etc. It’s a way of touching base with a part of yourself that might be whitewashed on macro levels, celebrating difference rather than ignoring it.
However, I’m not quite sure why there’s such a vitriolic resistence to the very necessary inclusion of dissenting voices in other venues, and within feminist discussion on whole. I don’t like the way they shut you up, it makes me tremendously uncomfortable. It creates stagnancy and ineffective complacency, and I find it, frankly, boring. For example, one lady I never find myself disagreeing with is bell hooks. Thus, there comes a moment at which I’ve reached my saturation point with her criticism–how stimulating is it to find yourself being a “yes man”? Of course, she is exactly whom I throw at somebody who needs to get themself acquainted with some bigger concepts, but I rarely find her to be such a risky or daring critic. (Of course, after reading the bird-brained comments over on this Feministing post, I think I may be taking her for granted a little. A lot, actually. Ugh, norms, WHY R U DUM)
Can we please honor some of these irreverent, dangerous thinkers, and acknowledge their contributions to scholarship and culture? I advise you go listen to some talk radio. Sit down, absorb the insanity of Michael Savage, for instance. Just hang out and experience the uncomfortable pleasure of finding yourself in moments of agonizing synchronicity which suddenly, violently twist and devolve into insane fascism you can sharpen your claws on. Nobodys all wrong. Nobodys all right, either.
