Search Eminism.org

  • Enter search term(s):

Patronization of Younger Feminists

"mutual disrespect" obscures power imbalance

Forum: WMST-L
Date: 06/06/2002

On 06/06/02 09:49 am, "Eileen Bresnahan" wrote:

A word to wise, Linda, in trying to understand this stuff: just because a woman seems to be "second-wave," it doesn't mean that she agrees with everything everyone seen to be of that "wave" said. "Second-wave" was a very diverse movement. It's very hard to make generalizations. [snip] One of your confusions with second wave seems to turn around the [snip] But you must get the point by now? [snip] You really missed my whole point on transsexuals, in your exhortation to me to GET OUT THERE AND ORGANIZE! (Just another word of advice--

Am I the only person who sees the pattern of constant patronizing directed toward Linda here? When she and Eileen disagree on something, it's not because they have different positions or priorities or goals, but it is because Linda doesn't know the history, or she's making generalizations, or she's confused and in need of advices.

Emi Koyama <emi@eminism.org>
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.


Forum: WMST-L
Date: 06/07/2002

On 06/07/02 12:53 am, "Heather Merle Benbow" wrote:

The accusation that experienced feminists who critique the conservatism of the 'third wave' are being 'patronizing' is a great smokescreen. It's a trump card for any younger feminist to deflect criticism

Please look at what Eileen wrote once again:

A word to wise, Linda, in trying to understand this stuff:
[snip]
One of your confusions with second wave seems to turn around
[snip]
But you must get the point by now?
[snip]
You really missed my whole point on transsexuals
[snip]
Just another word of advice--

These languages (and *not* the fact she is criticizing Linda), especially when they are used by those who hold greater institutional powers, are what I consider "patronizing." You probably would, too, if I addressed you (or anyone else) in this manner - don't you? Eileen could have easily stated her criticisms or objections to Linda's arguments without these patronizing patterns. For example, I thought Eileen had a good point when she made a point about the difference between long-term goals versus short-term reality, and she managed to make this rebuttle without having to make a patronizing remark (and I did not label that as "patronizing" just for the sake of deflecting her criticism, as you now allege). Unfortunately, Eileen felt the need to resort to a series of patronizing statements elsewhere, as shown above.

The true "trump card" to deflect criticism is when an older feminist says "you don't know history because you weren't there; whatever you may have learned was distorted and not real"; this one deserves the title of "trump card" because it is not disprovable, just like many conspiracy theories - that is, any evidence to the contrary can always be dismissed as "historical distortion" by someone making this statement. A young woman complaining about being patronized is different from this in that you can look at the actual statements made by the senior feminist and evaluate if they amount to the level of patronization (in this case, I think they are).

Emi Koyama <emi@eminism.org>
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.


Forum: WMST-L
Date: 06/07/2002

On 06/07/02 08:58 am, "Eileen Bresnahan" wrote:

Linda seemed not to understand that there are multiple variants of second wave feminism. emi seemed not to understand that, either, in her Gloria Steinem reference to which I replied in another post.

Of course Linda does, and I do. The Gloria Steinem reference was meant to be sarcastic (which is why I used the word "archetypal" - an unusual choice of word if I was being serious). Case in point: after my department chair, who is a socialist feminist, heard Amy Richards speak, she came over to me and said, giggling, that it looks like I will have to deal with this Amy Richards problem just like she has had to deal with Gloria Steinem all those years. We both sighed. Now, my department chair and I have our differences (for example, she refused to accept the "I Love My Cunt" pin I tried to give her), but we both share the basic understanding of any wave of feminism having "multiple variants" - which is *so* basic that I'm embarrassed to even have to clarify.

I mean, both Linda and I are true-bred Women's Studies students/ graduates, thanks to the second wave feminists who made that possible. We have been trained with various theories, movements, and currents within feminism, enough to know at least basics about many of them, in addition to learning about them from other sources such as from older activists or through popular media. You may (rightfully) have reservations about how Women's Studies students are currently being trained, or how they may be taught distorted version of the history of the second wave, but, surely, something as basic as any wave of feminism having "multiple variants" would be obvious to any of us who spent as much time learning about feminism as we have. Your continued insistence that Linda and I do not know about "multiple variants" of the second wave is not only patronizing, but also ridiculously off the mark.

Losing the radical WLM got us the "po-mo turn" and now it has got us "Third Wave."

The term "third wave feminism" was first used by Black and Chicana feminists in the late 1970s, and their ideas can be directly traced to at least as early as 1970, when _The Black Woman_ was published. In other words, "third wave feminism" was very much contemporary to "woman-loving-woman" shebang. That is why many sensible "third wave" scholars are describing third wave as feminism "outside of" or "beside" the second wave, rather than "after." Perhaps you did not even notice that the third wave feminism was going on until white middle-class women like Richards and Baumgardner jumped on the wagon and detached it from its much more radical roots - how typical.

The radicalism has been lost and silly, romantic, individualistic, classist, liberal, anti-materialist, and/or purely "academic" things have become "theory." And people actually go around calling NOW "radical"!

None of these describe me or other feminists I work with.

Emi Koyama <emi@eminism.org>
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.


Forum: WMST-L
Date: 06/07/2002

On 06/07/02 06:53 am, "Liora Moriel" wrote:

Kudos to Marge Piercy for being on target as usual--why the infighting?

I do not think that resistance against anti-transsexual, anti-prostitute, anti-S/M, and other oppressive forms of feminismt "variants" on this list over the past few months is "infighting." Many real women's lives are at stake here - I will defend transsexuals, prostitutes, and S/M practitioners, whether the attack is from the right wing or the cops or self-identified "feminists." For example:

(And I wonder this zeal is not spent on nailing johns and pimps...)

Go ahead and nail those pimps whose employment practices are exploitative (that is, more so than other businesses under the capitalist system), or johns who are rude to workers, but why go after the entire groups of johns or pimps? Tell me, after you've nailed johns and pimps, who is going to give prostitutes jobs that have flexible schedule, relatively shorter working hours, and livable wage for her and her children - which is precisely what many prostitute mothers need? This reminds me of "pro-life" conservatives who claim to care deeply about fetuses and yet do nothing to improve the harsh economic realities for young, poor single women once they choose to have the baby...

Emi Koyama <emi@eminism.org>
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.