Validating, yet oddly displacing

Apparently I think like someone with a minor in Women’s studies:

I felt the reason’s that Choice for Childcare was initially considered a feminist blog was because it pertained the issue of both choice for women, and for dealing with daycare (an issue that affects both single and married women). Unlike Small Dead Animals or some of the other conservative ‘feminist’ blogs, the arguments were based on economic principals under the assumption that these would benefit women, not something like religious reasons (that Suzanne provided for her arguments about abortion) or the simple fact that she was a woman. In fact, some of the ones eliminated were women, but appeared to me to be anti-feminist (a contradiction for the category they appeared in). One was a stripper, the others argued for free speech – which may have been a compelling argument for having them included in the feminist category if it was so heavily in favour of hate speech. Many didn’t seem to display an understanding of feminist logic. Choice for Childcare was using economic arguments for her position. In many of the classes I’ve attended, both in economic and women’s studies, this was the single most advancing portion of the feminist movement other than historical arguments themselves.

If feminism cannot include advocating for choice for women in daycare what would that say about feminism? (context)

Update… Specifically, in light of what’s quoted above, my feminist moment:

…having a rule like that on the books could make it harder for women to get jobs because with a choice between a woman and a man employers might tend to pick the one who can’t sue the company because they believe they’re being underpaid because of gender discrimination – especially if it’s a small company that’s gotten burned before. 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Validating, yet oddly displacing”

  1. saskboy Says:

    Since the other parties involved in this dispute like to lock down their comments more than your blog, I’m commenting here this once for personal reasons, not wearing my CBA Operator hat.

    I don’t see a big problem with Sara being in the Feminist category and winning 2nd this year. Under different rules, or in future years she might want to reconsider running if she really doesn’t like being labeled as a “feminist”, but as I understand the purpose of feminism, she certainly qualifies as one in at least one important sense. She wants economic parity for women along with men. I also get a sense that she wants more than just economic parity too, which right there makes her perfect for the category based on the rules, and in what most people understand to be “feminism”. Feminism is the movement that seeks to put women on equal political, social, economic, and cultural footing with men, so that a woman has equal opportunity to a man, and doesn’t get condemned in any way for doing something a man typically does.

    I don’t think someone who gives $1B to charity every year can deny being a philanthropist, and I don’t think someone who blogs mostly about equal rights for women [and means it] can deny having a feminist’s blog. They are who they are. CBA categories don’t determine who someone is, a person’s actions and dreams do.

    Sara brings up another important point regarding all this “controversy”:
    “I didn’t even win, and the others in the category are seriously whining over this.
    That is the problem.”

    And that is a problem. Seriously, there are 10 year olds who play hockey, who lose more gracefully than some of these bloggers making a stink. What would you think if someone went around to multiple categories and started calling the winners “garbage” or “a joke”? Would you let trolls like that exist on your blog?

    Even if the rules weren’t ultimately ideal, and the ref wasn’t perfect, and the other side was trying to cheat, ultimately the game is over and it is what it is this time, so try to lose with an ounce of class and respectfully petition the “league” for rule changes for next year so things will be better next time.

  2. da wolfe Says:

    I mentioned to my New York Times reading freind that I like to argue about Obama with, that one conservative had made the best feminist poll and that didn’t seem to fly with the rest. He said something about “entitlement”.

    I can really see how it offended some of them though – especially in that they saw the other team as cheating. It’s a neat confluence of conservative arseholery and liberal entitlement. For me the arseholery doesn’t register because I’m familiar with why conservatives don’t like what they see as feminism and how those kinds of feminists are always saying we hate women… Warren Kinsella way back saying there were no female Blogging Tories – A Chick Named Marzi was quite unimpressed. But when Wonder Woman was nominated as best feminist when she attracts readers in ways that you could definately say does not do much for women bloggers being taken seriously I’m not suprised that people saw it all as insulting.

    Still, it’s childish – especially that Sara was already in the poll when she said “in my heart I am no feminist”, that she was the only conservative in it, and especially for me since I see the conservative arseholery as a response to liberal insults and the result was more insults.

  3. What to call this? « The General Wolfe Says:

    […] but as I say, no suprise that it makes people think I’m not sincere. As I commented here, what many see as conservatives trying to disrupt the Best Feminist category I see as people […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: