Beyond Feminism

I swear to the Goddess that I have tried not to do this doodle.

This is how I imagine popular feminists to be like. It’s a fantasy of mine which may or may not correspond to reality, but for some reason I can’t get rid of this image. I call them Glamour Feminists. They publish books, they keep blogs. They don’t venture into more “radical” or “unpopular” territory. But more importantly, they have a Helluva time. Which sounds slightly suspicious to me. How many political activists do you recall to have had a Helluva time while actively trying to change the world? While this is what I torture myself with (WARNING! Extremely disturbing stuff), they go to fancy shmancy trips with their boyfriends. No wonder they never appear keen on changing the current economic system. No wonder they don’t stop to think about what it means to fe a feminist and have a boyfriend. Hell, they don’t seem to have anything but praise to being “single” even though they have partners themselves!

I am being unfair, I know that. I am far too frustrated with my own life to not colour my perception of anyone else’s with jelousy. But I read blogs by less Glamorous feminists who have it much much tougher and work much harder. Women who have seen the nastiest side of what it means to be a woman in patriarchy.

As I said, I don’t know where sheer childish prejudice ends and real criticism begins. So I ask for your help. Do you think that the Glamour Feminist exists? Have you ever felt anything similar?

If you’ve ever been within a kilometer of planet Earth, you will have heard at some point the argument that “the male ego is fragile”. It is annoyingly common in the sub-genre of the Malestream Media reserved for women. Why, one wonders, would WOMEN be concerned with the strength or lack of it in the MALE ego? Because it seems that by patriarchal decree, women have been appointed Official Carers of The Male Ego. Why the (dubious) honour? Are men’s egos more fragile than women’s? No. It’s because the male ego is oversized; and it’s women’s devaluation which makes up for the “extra” in it. And since that “extra” is obtained illegitimately, the ego needs constant “pumping” too keep itself in one piece.

So what’s the course of action? Tell men to suck it up and take care of their own damn egoes. So their ego is fragile? Well, mine is non-existent. And somehow I manage to survive without expecting anyone to come to my rescue when the non-existence of my ego takes its toll on me.

I’d like to make clear that I am not against “democracy” per se. What I’m criticizing is what democracy looks like at the moment. I’m expressing what I believe most people feel in their gut: that choosing between bad and worse is not democracy. And it’s not part of “this” current election (I’m using the term “this” vaguely on purpose). Not only is the same situation present in every single election, (something older people know well), but it’s also present in most supposedly “democratic” nations. The reason for this is obvious: “teh powerz” is not in the hands of people nor is it in the hands of the government. It’s in the hands of the Big Moneymakers to whom the government (and the people, for that matter) must pander to.

We need a far more radical change than a mere switch between “the party on the far right and the party not so far on the right”.

For an excellent view on how “choosing between bad and worse” isn’t all that good for women in particular, you could do worse than check out Melissa McEwan’s latest essay. Published in a web page that shall now be referred to as “the page that doesn’t care much about the sexualization of young girls, as shown by the ad of Miley’s latest video which consists of a sequence of images of her pouting at the camera with her eyes closed, and many other girls innocently hugging and kissing teddys and winking at the camera”. Which pretty much proves Melissa’s point: the left isn’t listening to us, and we won’t shut up about it. (at least I like to think that’s the point she’s making ;))

You’ve probably seen this before. Some male talking head comes along and starts making strong points in support of ideas and concepts that women have known for centuries. Raising children is rewarding, emotions and feelings are important, caring for others is essential for the wellbeing of our society, the value of the community, etc, etc.
I have mixed feelings over this. On the one hand it is good that these ideas are getting coverage and credibility. On the other, it is, after all, a MAN doing the talking. Further still, it’s because of feminism that these ideas have been able to shake off their “feminine” and (therefore) “unimportant” tags which has allowed men to reconsider them.

Big Note: I don’t want anyone to misunderstand; I am not saying that these things are “female” by nature or anything like that. Rather, they were labeled “female” for some unfathomable reason the minute that patriarchy was created. And because everything “female” has to be, by definition, “second class”, these ideas have suffered the same fate. (I have to write a decent sized post about all this)

Tee hee! Har Har!

I know, I’m being mean.

Feel free to copy, past, print and … ehm… laugh.

YAY for socks and YAY for hairy legs!

Who wants to join in the challenge? All you have to do is let the world know that you have body hair like a normal human being and that you are not ashamed of it! Let’s kick femininity up the arse with our hairy legs! 

Anyone brave enough to take a picture of her be-knickered crotch with pubic hair springing from the sides?  

We all need some sweetness every now and then.

Spas seem to be all the rage lately. Every now and then one of them will appear on the news for the sole merit of having come up with a brand new gimmick to “treat” people with. Some time ago, it was stones. Now, I love stones as much as the next witch apprentice, BUT this use of stones seems to me to corrupt the whole principle of stones. Then it was chocolate. Now I think it’s immersing yourself in a bath tub of wine or something like that.

Oh, how I love laughing at the ridiculous practices of the ubber rich!

This idea sounded better in my head. Oh well.

Here’s a depiction of how women were distributed in the hierachical structure that is patriarchal society* BEFORE…

And NOW…

I tried to show how things have changed. Well yes, they have, but mostly for those on top. You know, the ones who were already A-OK-ish.
There’s a big reason why the people at the bottom of the structure are sistematically ignored by feminism. Yes, it is, partly, because feminists who have time to engage in feminism are usually from the top themselves. But also, because the only way to move the people at the bottom UP is to move the people at the top DOWN. And yes, the very feminists who are at the top are not very likely to work towards moving themselves down. But also, because in order for that to happen, we would have to bring “teh left” into the table. And “teh left” is, like, not cool. It’s a dirty word. It’s not gonna make you very popular. And it’s definitely not gonna help you sell “cool” books.

Constructive criticism welcomed!

* not to scale, not scientific, not researched, not… that good.

This would be much funnier if it were less true.

Now, who thinks this stuff is good enough to appear on a feminist zine? Any ideas which one would be willing to publish it?