i've been exploring the notion of feminism today.
i am a feminist. most of my friends are and self-describe that way regardless of gender.
but there's an attitude of any 1 should be able to use the term. i'm not slamming that attitude. c.i. has that attitude. the point being that it's often turned into a dirty word so any 1 willing to use it, great.
but i'm seeing a lot of female hawks these days. little security mommies. and they're worse than neocons because the neocons do not give a crap. these women (and they're probably some men too) seem to think that they can play war hawk and claim feminism.
now the feminists i hang out with are strong feminists. you've got elaine, c.i., ruth, betty, ava and dona, kat and jess. he's a feminist. (mike, you'd make me very happy if you'd start using the word because you are a feminist.)
but when i'm talking to them we realize, like now pointed out, peace is a feminist issue.
and i'm tired of people getting to use the word.
i don't mean i own the word. i certainly don't.
but it seems like there are standards by which you meet the term.
and somehow it's all become about wages.
that's not surprising in our money hungry society.
but that's not feminism.
and i'm really getting tired of these war hawks claiming that they are feminists. or building on something because they are a woman. and if you don't like what they say, it's 'oh i'm being picked on because i'm a woman.' no, you're being picked on because you are moron regardless of gender.
and let me make a few points here. these women never really care about any 1 else's wages or how they're doing, it's just about them.
that's why they can slam a working class or poverty level single mother and talk to her about 'responsibility.' that's not feminism.
and when someone wants to do that, when she wants to make that kind of statement, she needs to quit getting a pass because she's a woman.
there was an alert from gina & krista in their round-robin so a lot of people will know what i'm talking about.
as usual, c.i. set the record straight in such a way that the person who's angered every 1 isn't named. but i think the community will be happy if not today then tomorrow.
mike's bit his tongue over and over about this woman.
we are a feminist community, regardless of whether all members use the term or not.
when c.i. mentioned pro-choice was something the community supported, gina & krista had already done the polling. there may be visitors that swing by that aren't pro-choice, but the community is. we're against the war. we're in favor of equal opportunities for all and realize that means a social safety net because not every 1 starts off at the same point and because life can really screw you over. you can work your ass off and still be living paycheck to paycheck.
the community knows what feminism means.
and this nonsense that c.i. has to put up with ... i understand members are mad at some 1 but it's like every week now c.i. has to issue a clarification post (like this morning) to make it clear that the person in question, who's not a member of the community and doesn't link to us doesn't speak for us.
this is an issue that came up in d.c. we've got another blog that will be going live either today or tomorrow and another right behind that. the point is, the community is self-sustaining. and there's enough going on in the community without having to go out of it.
cedric gave a really great speech on this, and it was a speech (the thing gina & krista published on sunday in their special round-robin on d.c.). cedric said it's great that c.i. pushes his posts and he always appreciates that because he's just started up. but there are some people that shouldn't be linked to. and just being quiet about them isn't enough if they've got a link on the side. jim agreed with that as well. jim and i are always the 1s saying this stuff so it's great that it came from cedric this time.
the best thing elaine did for me besides fill in was to clean the blogroll. i wouldn't have taken those women down because i was thinking 'oh they're women.' but they don't do shit for us. some of them e-mailed me their problems and i was sitting there wasting my time telling them it was okay and they were okay. and i felt sorry and added some to my blogroll.
but you'll note, they could whine to me but they weren't going to do shit for me.
that's messed up. and when cedric posted on this and elaine spoke to c.i. about it, that was the 1st c.i. knew of it. c.i. doesn't care about links because the community is c.i.'s. we all benefit, we're all members but c.i. built it and there's not a member that doesn't go to the common ills.
and on thursday, in the private e-mail account for members, c.i. had 2035 e-mails. so there's no reason for c.i. to ever think that the rest of us aren't all doing equally well.
but when elaine and cedric raised the issue of the way i've been treated, c.i. got pissed off. if we hadn't had the problems this weekend that we had (and thanks to gina & krista for running the third entries in their round-robin that wouldn't post), it would have already been dealt with. but today, c.i. had to clarify that the person doesn't speak for the community (or for c.i.) and i think c.i.'s sick of it. i know c.i. is. and the point c.i. made this weekend when we had time to talk about it was, 'no 1 gets linked to by this woman?'
no, none of us.
so why have we linked to her?
jim said, 'look, if she linked to people, it would be 1 thing. we could say "okay, we disagree but everyone's got a right to free speech and don't go there if you don't like her." but the fact remains that she doesn't link to us. and that's not right.'
the link hurts c.i. more than any 1 because every week now she's writing something that members are up in arms about. karla will visit or some 1 else and copy and paste and it will circulate (with criticism) throughout the community. as it does, c.i. will get all these e-mails on it from members and have to drop everything to issue some statement (while taking the high road) to make it clear that those aren't the sentiments of the community.
and this all ties into why c.i. wrote the entries on sheryl crow yesterday.
we all heard that lame cd or parts of it this weekend. (i bailed after the 2nd song.) but jim said, 'this is just like sheryl crow, she'll get a pass because she's a woman. she's not doing anything for women. she's doing it for herself and turning her back on the peace movement but she'll get a pass.'
c.i. just made the comment about her writing bad lyrics yesterday morning. but when sheryl freaks came swarming to say 'how dare you,' c.i. did another post that dealt with crow. (and c.i. held the tongue on that. i do know 1 of the rockers that c.i. was referring to. and he's given me an earfull on crow and how disappointed everyone is with her.) (he's my claim to groupie status!)
but doing that entry (and it's a great entry, i laugh at this: '", man" is implied' everytime i read it) took up time and the entry c.i. hoped to do had to wait. and that's how it is with this woman. every week, c.i. has to find a way to high road a commentary for the community.
there was the time the woman didn't know shit about cindy sheehan and c.i. had to do a remedial post. so it just takes up too much time.
and that was jim's point, if she linked to any of us the attitude could be 'well free speech and all that' but she doesn't link to us and she causes problems because we have linked to her. we end up with e-mails asking, have you seen this!
people are offended. and it's not worth it to link to her.
so i'm sick of it tonight. i'm sick of war cheerleaders and women who get a pass because they're women. they don't help other women. they only help who they want to help. they don't stand for feminism but they benefit from it. they benefit from 'where are the women bloggers' and so women try to link to each other. but these women who don't do the same just look out for themselves.
it's rude, it's hypocritical and it's not worth it because they're not doing anything to promote women. they're only promoting themselves.
this may be my topic this week. tomorrow i may post on 1 woman who's written me repeatedly and always ends with some nonsense about 'remember we all need to stick together' and she means women by 'we' and she wrote about 3 times a week until i went on vacation. and i linked to her, put her on my blogroll. but she never did the same. it was about her. 'we all need to stick together' translated as 'every 1 needs to link to me!'
remember, tomorrow mike has an interview with 1 of the best women bloggers, betty. don't miss it.
make sure you don't miss kat's review of the rolling stone's latest cd.
