Feminist blogosphere: Love it or leave it

I’m still catching up, of course, but this has actually had a benefit of noticing some trends that I had spotted but not really registered before. The one that’s really making me laugh (because it’s either that or punch things) is the (white) feminist blogosphere’s acceptance of one of the ultimate expressions of patriarchy.

Since it is evidently dandy for a feminist to create a post denouncing another feminist woman as “ignorant”, and since it is evidently dandy to then attempt, in various ways, to deepen and improve upon the humiliation, perhaps it is similarly dandy for me to suggest that all of you here, save Kitty, display some pretty hefty ignorance of your own. — Heart, on Rachel’s entry here 

Or how about this:

Anyone who’s been reading the feminist blogs in the past week knows that we’ve come dangerously close to forming the proverbial circular firing squad. — Hugo Schwyzer, back in May 

I am not going to comment on either argument (yet, anyway); I’ve been entirely out of touch with many blogs for the past six weeks, aside from a group of must-reads. I haven’t read comments or commented myself for most of the past month.But I am going to comment on the George W. Bush style of feminism.

Because that’s what it is; people like Heart and Hugo Schwyzer have defined feminism and declared that anyone who doesn’t fit their definition is “attacking” feminists. Ironic, because I doubt that the two of them have the same definition of feminism — in fact, I would make a large wager that they don’t, but I doubt anyone would take that bet!

The circular firing squad is a fallacy. Patriarchy — or rather, white male supremacy — demands that people toe the line and don’t disagree. “If you don’t like it, leave.” This is expressed in the whole “America: Love it or leave it” meme.

It’s expressed by major corporations firing whistle-blowers, hunting down inside bloggers even when they aren’t breaking a non-disclosure agreement, firing or demoting dissenters. It’s expressed by judges ordering strikers to work under the conditions they are protesting because the major corporation they work for might lose a few million (why not order the corporation to honor union contracts instead?).

It’s also expressed in the “progressive” blogosphere, when bloggers who want to discuss anything but the Iraq War and election politics are told that they are hobbyists with pet issues. It’s expressed through phrases like “circular firing squad.” It’s expressed by A-list bloggers who say, “Wait, we’ll discuss your issues later, but toe the line now.” It’s expressed by bloggers like Nezua being attacked when they refuse to back down from their “pet issues” and challenge the A-listers.

It’s expressed in the feminist blogosphere in the two quotes above, and in countless comments telling people that crumbs are good enough. We’re all fighting the patriarchy, so why can’t we just present a united front (and ignore hard concepts like racism within feminism, homophobia within feminism, intersectionality, feminism within organized religion, etc.)?

My patriarchy looks a lot different from theirs. My patriarchy has propped itself up with sexism, yes, but also with racism, homophobia, classism, ablism, organized religion (just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the Church and organized Christianity in general — oh no, circular firing squad!). My patriarchy keeps anyone who isn’t a wealthy, able-bodied, straight, white, Christian male down by turning them against each other — not via “circular firing squads” but by teaching them that the world is, excuse the pun, “black and white.” That there are hard definitions to movements, and that solidarity is presenting a united front and hiding the tensions and turmoils within.

It’s not.

Let’s talk a little about solidarity. Solidarity is not blindly supporting what someone says is your cause. Solidarity is, at the barest of minimums, listening to people. It’s listening to criticisms instead of treating them as attacks, and actually hearing them and acknowledging them. It’s a mutual relationship in which all sides (not both, because there is much beyond the binary) interact with each other and take something away from that interaction.

Solidarity is including people — not as tokens, not as a way to silence critics, but really, truly including them in major decisions, major discussions, and including the problems they face when deciding how to fight.

Solidarity means learning from the past instead of repeating the same mistakes that have been made from 1848 straight through the present day.

Solidarity is providing support for people, not making them feel hurt and sickened every time a topic comes up because of your attacks. Solidarity brings people in, it doesn’t drive them away.

Solidarity has never been about presenting a united front. It has always been about recognizing other people AS PEOPLE and treating them accordingly. THAT is solidarity, not some fucked up “you can’t criticize me, the man is watching!” concept.