UofM Feminist

Eddie Murphy back in the day on "the gays."

Not. Funny.

Posted by Jessica Englund at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here is another one of my papers entitled "Responses by the Feminist Blogosphere to the Sexism Towards Hillary Clinton's Campaign." I am aware that the writing is not very good, but I think it makes a point.

In what ways should the feminist blogosphere address the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidency? Not many have truly endeavored to answer that question. In my essay, I will offer a comprehensive definition of feminism, the significance of the feminist blogosphere on feminist movement, and begin to address the above question. I chose to include only three feminist blogs in this analysis, but this is not a negative aspect. I intend to illustrate the difficulty of battling sexism for a woman candidate, especially for the highest political office in the United States.

The first step to understanding the feminist blogosphere’s reaction and action regarding the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is to define feminism. bell hooks, a feminist theorist and activist, wrote Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center in 1984. Although in the ‘80s she was quite revolutionary, many feminists today view her perspectives as slightly outdated. Regardless of this critique, I appreciate her definition of feminism. Her theories are certainly more inclusive and educated than what Jennifer Baumgartner and Amy Richards suggest feminism is in their book, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. They write as third wave feminists who are trying to rally younger women back into the feminist movement. They suggest that feminism is “the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women” (Baumgartner & Richards 56). Although I agree that feminism is a movement, I take issue with their suggestion that feminism is solely about equality between men and women. First of all, they work solely within the gender binary, which many feminists are trying desperately to undo, and secondly, they do not acknowledge any other aspects of oppression than sexism and the inequality between men and women. I adore bell hooks’ argument that gaining equality with men is merely a “bourgeois white woman” definition of feminism. She argues, “women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status” (hooks 19). The “bourgeois white woman’s” definition ignores class and race factors and identities that play a major role in feminist discourse as well as daily oppression and exploitation. In an effort to be all-inclusive and more accurate, I adopt bell hooks’ definition of feminism as “a movement to end sexist oppression” (hooks 33). Even though hooks’ definition also only discusses sexist oppression, she offers that, “sexist oppression is of primary importance not because it is the basis of all other oppression, but because it is the practice of domination most people experience, whether their role be that of discriminator or discriminated against, exploiter or exploited” (hooks 36). For this reason, I support bell hooks’ definition and will be the guiding force behind my arguments.

The three feminist blogs that I chose were for multiple reasons. Feministing, Feministe, and The Curvature are three of the most popular and highly cited blogs within the online feminist dialogue. But, most importantly, these three are self-identified as feminist. In analyzing any topic through a feminist lens, the support one uses should be self-identified as feminist. This idea is critical for the discussion of the Hillary campaign within the feminist blogosphere. These three blogs also are more than simply feminist, they address political issues as well.

So, who exactly are behind these blogs? Jessica Valenti is the mastermind behind Feministing.com. She is the creator and the executive editor. The mission of Feministing is that “young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing provides a platform for us to comment, analyze and influence” (Feministing: About Us). She also has written a book for young women entitled Full Frontal Feminism that is meant to include these younger women in the third wave. Feministe is very similar in mission and content as Feministing and has three main contributors: Jill, Zuzu, and Piny. There is no specified mission or anything ‘about’ this particular blog. The Curvature

is a feminist blog about politics and culture. It primarily deals with U.S. events, but also discusses international issues when a feminist analysis is pertinent. Although written from a white, heterosexual, middle-class perspective, The Curvature aims to include and bring attention to issues effecting women of color, low-income women, and the LGBTQ community. It welcomes and encourages perspectives from all these groups.

Cara is the sole contributor to this blog and occasionally cross-posts her blog entries on Feministing. These three blogs have amazing women (and men) who seem to catch everything that falls through the cracks in the media and address all events from a feminist perspective. I understand that the credibility of these bloggers can be a tricky subject and is very important to the discussion of their ideas. I move to suggest that although it is impossible to truly know if these bloggers are credible sources of information, one should look past that issue and focus on their opinions and the questions and critiques that they raise. Hooks argues that, “politically, the white supremacist, patriarchal state relies on the family to indoctrinate its members with values supportive of hierarchical control and coercive authority. Therefore, the state has a vested interest in projecting the notion that feminist movement will destroy family life” (hooks 39). This is one of the ways that feminist movement must not only be strong, but must not implode on itself by criticizing its own credibility. Radical, I know, but trusting these feminist voices is more important than asking who has the right to speak from a feminist lens.

What exactly is the influence, or significance, of examining sexism from a feminist blogosphere perspective? I argue that the dialogue from the feminist blogosphere is rarely looked at or analyzed. These bloggers offer interesting perspectives on feminism, sexism, and societal norms that one may not find elsewhere. One benefit to observing this dialectic is that these people do not need to censor themselves nearly as strictly as those who write for newspapers, journals, or even in books. The posting of blog entries is instant gratification and the responses are uncensored and quick to criticize. According to bell hooks, “the significance of feminist movement…is that it offers a new ideological meeting ground for the sexes, a space for criticism, struggle, and transformation” (hooks 35). I fully agree with this argument. The space created by these feminist blogs is critical for feminist movement and for creating a new dialogue and a new agenda. Any voice can express itself in such a space.

Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy on January 22nd, 2007. From that day, I begin my analysis of the feminist blogosphere response to sexism against her campaign. Although Hillary is a woman, she is not a feminist. That must be clearly understood, otherwise one will be quite disappointed in her policies! The basis for most of Hillary’s criticism comes not from her policies or ideas, but from the fact that she is a woman. One major question for feminists, especially throughout the blogosphere, is whether or not feminists should support Hillary for president simply because she is a woman. In a January 31st post entitled “Official candidate of the sisterhood?”, one Feministing contributor, Jen, states:

As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they're being asked why. That's the bad news. The good news is they're all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There's no vagina litmus test, people. For the rest of you out there, am I wrong? Should women, especially feminists be supporting Hillary by default? (Jen 1/31/07).

The overwhelming response from commenters and feminist bloggers is no. Although many feminists support Hillary for running, they do not support her as a candidate. Most feminists are torn between trying to get any woman into the presidency and waiting for a feminist woman to get elected. This question has put some feminists in a difficult position, but they continue to respond that “being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women.”

So when did the sexist comments start? To be politically correct, Hillary has always been confronted with sexism ever since she has run for office. It was not until around June that the feminist blogosphere started documenting the sexism directed specifically towards Hillary. In a June 4th entry, Vanessa from Feministing wrote the entry, “Sexist Prick of the Week” discussing Carl Bernstein’s new book on Hillary, “which reeks of sexist ‘commentary’ on her intelligence (or lack thereof), femininity (or lack thereof), and yes, her fat ankles” (Vanessa 6/4/07). Her response to these quotes of sexist remarks regarding Hillary’s fat ankles was simply: “Why people like this actually get book deals is beyond me” (Vanessa 6/4/07). Cara, from The Curvature, posts “Surprise, Surprise: Misogynist Jokes at Clinton’s Expense” on June 5th regarding Hillary’s campaign song. She rants at the end of the post stating that criticizing Hillary’s campaign song is, “not criticizing Clinton, that hating the fact that she’s a woman and doesn’t behave in a demure obedient, waif-ish manner. It’s hating on all women who don’t see the need to take shit from men or starve themselves skinny just because they happen to possess a uterus. And therefore, it’s insulting to me” (Cara 6/4/07).

There are two main events that all three blogs covered: the McCain ‘bitch’ event and the ‘diamonds or pearls?’ event. As an explanation, during one of McCain’s campaign meetings, a random woman supporter asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?” His response was even worse than the question. He answered by saying “May I give the translation?” when another supporter chipped in by saying, “John, I think she was talking about my ex-wife.” [Laughter] McCain continues, “But that’s an excellent question. You might know that there was a poll yesterday, a Rasmussen poll, that identified…that shows me three points ahead of Senator Clinton in a head to head match-up.” [Applause] He goes on to say, “I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democratic Party.” Jill, from Feministe, posted this video on November 14th. She responds by saying:

Most interesting to me is the roaring laughter in the room after the question is asked…McCain is fielding questions, and one woman asks, “How do we beat the bitch?” Everyone laughs, and some guy shouts out, “I thought you were talking about my ex-wife!”. Republicans insist that they aren’t a party reliant on sexism and racism. They lie. (Jill 11/14/07).

She not only points out the horrendous response by McCain, who does not address the sexist comment made by one of his supporters, but also the comment made by another supporter referring to his ex-wife. Not only did this video show sexism directed towards Hillary, but also towards women in general. Jessica from Feministing addresses McCain’s response, “That’s an excellent question.” She asks, “Really? Is it? Or are [you] just an asshole too afraid to call someone out on their completely inappropriate language?” (Jessica 11/13/07). Cara from The Curvature addresses this event as well. She writes, “ ‘bitch’ is a highly sexist term, and Hillary Clinton is participating in [a] presidential race that is highly sexist. When used in the context that it was used here, it was high[ly] derogatory, and yes, a direct comment on her gender” (Cara 11/13/07). I admire Cara’s response the most because not only does it address McCain’s incredible insensitivity and sexism, but she addresses the issue as an attack on Hillary’s gender and not merely the fact that she’s running for president. What all three of these women have addressed here is the fact that the term ‘bitch’ in the way it was utilized is sexist, derogatory, and completely inappropriate. Although there are many feminists, including Jennifer Baumgartner and Amy Richards, who personally embrace the term ‘bitch’ because they feel as if they have utilized it in a way that reflects positively on themselves. I appreciate that these women did not approach this statement from that perspective as it was meant to be offensive.

The other main event is from the November 15th CNN democratic debate. The last question asked during the debate was for Hillary Clinton, asking her whether she preferred diamonds or pearls. She answered, “Now, I know I am sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both.” Ann from Feministing doesn’t offer much criticism except to say, “Addie notes that, no, the dudes were not asked, “Boxers or briefs?” Robbed of their ability to play their gender cards! How unfair” (Ann 11/15/07). Much like Ann, Jill from Feministe doesn’t criticize except to say:

So Sen. Clinton gets asked yet another dumb girly question, and all the other candidates get to act indignant about her being tossed softballs at the debates. I would have loved to see Clinton use the question as an opportunity to say something about the brutal and exploitative diamond industry, but that wouldn’t have been a “fun” answer to a “fun” question. Apparently, the voters want fun” (Jill 11/17/07).

I don’t quite understand how it is that such a sex-motivated question was asked and not one of the bloggers suggested contacting CNN and raging.

One of the major themes throughout these blog entries are the bloggers’ anger or irritation at these sexist comments, but then not doing anything about it or offering a means for readers to do anything about it. In posts regarding natural disasters or human injustice, especially Hurricane Katrina, these blogs offer means to contact people and to donate money to help causes. In a most recent example, on December 11th, Jessica from Feministing posted an entry regarding junior girls’ panties being sold at Wal-Mart. The underwear were pink and said “Who needs credit cards…” Jessica writes, “Contact customer service here and corporate offices here: let them know that preteen vaginas aren’t commodities” (Jessica 12/11/07). The next day, on December 12th, Jessica posts again writing that “the gross “Who needs credit cards…” panties have been pulled from Wal-Mart” (Jessica 12/12/07). Why is it that the feminist blogosphere is offering no means to contact persons responsible for the sexist comments? Is it because these feminist bloggers don’t support Hillary Clinton as a candidate?

One would think that with all of this anger and irritation at the sexism directed at Hillary, that these bloggers would not criticize her because she doesn’t support feminist policies. Wrong. Cara, from The Curvature, cross-posts an entry on Feministing entitled “Girl Power?” regarding Hillary’s comment, “I’m your girl.” Cara writes,

Wait, what? Forget the part about how Clinton says that she stands up to right-wing machine when she actually has a history of caving in (*cough* Iraq War). “I’m your girl?” She’s 59-years-old! I bring up her age not to make her sound “old”– I’m 23, and I bristle at being called a “girl” as much as any 23-year-old man bristles at being called a “boy.” I resent the cultural phenomenon of infantilizing women, as well as the social practice for men to be called men the moment they turn 18, while women have to wait at least until they’re 30 to be regularly called a woman, and even then are encouraged to put off the change as long as possible. (Cara 8/9/07).

I am well aware of the debate within feminism regarding people calling women ‘girls’ and in the process, infantilizing these women. However, I sincerely doubt that Hillary Clinton knows of this debate or even considered the backlash she would be causing by this simple statement. Anyone can see that Hillary is by not means a girl. By calling herself a ‘girl’ is not exactly politically correct, but no harm is done. In a June 7th post by Jen entitled, “Faith and abortion, of course,” she addresses a quote by Hillary Clinton from a forum hosed by Sojourners. Hillary stated, “In talking about abortion being safe, legal and rare, I mean rare. The pro-life and pro-choice communities have not been willing to find much common ground.” Jen’s response is, “Uh, Hil, you’re listening to too much anti-abortion rhetoric. The pro-choice community is the common ground position. Fighting for access to sex education and birth control, including Plan B, does precisely what you claim to want. The leadership in the pro-life community wants to control what women do with their bodies” (Jen 6/7/07). Rather than simply understanding Hillary’s stance on an issue, Jen criticizes her for not agreeing completely with the typically feminist abortion position. When feminist bloggers take positions like this and attack Hillary based on her non-feminist positions, they are being just as judgmental and harsh as some of the people who direct exceptionally sexist comments at her. She has made it perfectly clear that she is not a feminist and in expecting her to agree with feminist politics merely because she is a woman is unacceptable.

The feminist blogosphere, although addressing some very important sexism issues surrounding Hillary’s campaign, is not doing a very good job of objectively looking at her policies and addressing her stances. I understand looking at Hillary’s record and disagreeing with her there, but it is simply not all right for these bloggers to judge Hillary from a feminist perspective when she is not a feminist. Do not expect her to be one. Also, just because Hillary does not jump on the feminist bandwagon does not mean that these bloggers shouldn’t offer opportunities for readers to engage in feminist activism to help stop the sexism that is directed towards Hillary. I suggest these two remedies to the feminist blogosphere and commend it for its coverage of the sexist comments and declaring it inappropriate and unacceptable. The feminist blogosphere has some things to work on, but that does not mean that it does not good. The way they have directly addressed the sexist remarks directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign is commendable.

Works Cited
o Baumgartner, Jennifer, and Richards, Amy. Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.
o hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Cambridge: South End Press, 1984.
o Jill: “Diamonds or Pearls?” [Weblog entry.] Feministe. 11/17/07. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/17/diamonds-or-pearls/).
o Jill: “An excellent question” [Weblog entry.] Feministe. 11/14/07. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/14/an-excellent-question/).
o Cara: “Offensive Remark of the Week: John McCain Wins by Proxy Edition” [Weblog entry.] The Curvature. 11/13/07. (http://thecurvature.com/2007/11/13/offensive-remark-of-the-week-john-mccain-wins-by-proxy-edition/).
o Cara: “Girl Power?” [Weblog entry.] The Curvature. 8/9/07. (http://thecurvature.com/2007/08/09/girl-power/).
o Cara: “Surprise, Surprise: Misogynist Jokes at Clinton’s Expense” [Weblog entry.] The Curvature. 6/5/07. (http://thecurvature.com/2007/06/05/surprise-surprise-misogynist-jokes-at-clintons-expense/).
o Ann: “Hillary Sexism Watch: Accessories Edition” [Weblog entry.] Feministing. 11/15/07. (http://feministing.com/archives/008100.html#comments).
o Jessica: “Some woman-hating on McCain’s campaign trail” [Weblog entry.] Feministing. 11/13/07. (http://feministing.com/archives/008087.html#comments).
o Jen: “Faith and abortion, of course” [Weblog entry.] Feministing. 6/7/07. (http://feministing.com/archives/007142.html#comments).
o Jen: “Official candidate of the sisterhood?” [Weblog entry.] Feministing. 1/31/07. (http://feministing.com/archives/006446.html#comments).

Posted by Jessica Englund at 01:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Finals are almost over now. I have one paper left to write. I'm taking a Women and the Legislative Process course and for my final paper, I have decided to write about the response to the sexism of the Hillary Clinton campaign within the feminist blogosphere. I know that I'm not an expert on this topic, but I'm trying really hard to learn all that I can about feminist politics in the blogosphere. I'm hoping to finish this ridiculous paper by tonight and certainly by tomorrow, but I would love all the help I can get!

More importantly than this last paper, I am continuing the research on feminist spirituality. One of the things I have discovered is that there was (and is) a women's spirituality movement. It appears to be quite underground since many people I have talked to don't seem to know about this movement. More than that, I'm discovering and learning about Dianic Wicca. It was founded by Z. Budapest and she has written many books on the subject. I'm so caught up in this movement, its incredible. There is so much more that I don't know about! What exactly is Dianic Wicca and how is it different from 'traditional' Wicca or paganism in general? Can anyone offer insight? Or perhaps donate to the Jess-is-broke-fund so that she can buy these books? :)

Posted by Jessica Englund at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wish I could say that I don't care what other people say. I wish I could say it was society's fault that I do. Regardless of how educated any person is, there are habits that one simply cannot break. I know that for me, no matter how much I don't care about what other people perceive of me, I still apply makeup and attempt to wrangle with my hair. Some people believe that all those irrational habits are a result of how one was raised or what one experiences in life. I will not stop to tell anyone about my past or history in order to justify my own silly needs. However, if that were true, then why do we bother learning feminist theory and trying to instigate change in these areas? I argue that it doesn't matter how we behave or were raised, learning about feminist theory helps other people alter their own behavior. Trying to create change assures that the next generation feels more secure when leaving the house, walking at night, or speaking out.

One of the major ways in which people can alter ideas and normative thought is though literature and by being loud enough (and making sense, of course). One of my goals throughout all of my life has been to write essays and/or books in order to include myself in feminist discussion. I would love to be able to be disciplined enough to sit down and write about something that interests me. I would like the first to be on feminist spirituality. This fascinating topic is growing worldwide and I would like not only to be a part of it, but to make it more available to others who aren't persuaded by the publicized religions. What is most fascinating about feminist spirituality is that it embraces energy and is fluid. Depending on how a person finds their natural 'high' or what gives them the best feeling of energy, is how one finds their power. Its personalized in its solitary realm, but also allows for collective "worship." I quote the previous word simply because worship is not necessarily central to this form of spirituality. One needs not necessarily worship to fell that energy. For me, music is what brings my energy and 'high,' and this is, of course, different for others.

Although classes are almost over, I hope to begin the research for this essay over break. My friend Alissa will be helping me in this endeavor. We are both caught up in this new spirituality and embracing it. Both of us felt incredibly uncomfortable with the term 'atheist' and were looking for other options that didn't lead to christianity or other popularized religions. We both believe that we've found it here! Updates regarding this topic are forthcoming and, hopefully, so will the essay! Yesterday I put two of my course essays on here, please feel free to comment and, of course, to read!

This is an older picture, but its still good - Alissa, me, Allison, Sarah

Posted by Jessica Englund at 08:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

*This is a paper I wrote for a class. I don't completely agree with the argument I am making in the essay, but I think it's valid.*

The debate regarding the ‘proper’ feminist standpoint regarding the military has been going on for quite some time. Reformist feminists and revolutionary feminists have been the major forerunners of this monumental question: Should the military be reformed or dismantled? Perhaps this question is not appropriately presented or does not capture the true essence of the issue of the military, however, regardless of its imperfections, I utilize this particular form of question as its broad nature allows for multiple opinions and interpretations. One such view is captured by bell hooks in her book, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, where she debates reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics. I suggest that her definition of feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression be the guiding framework for the discussion of feminist politics as it encompasses the topic at hand as well as incorporates many forms of feminist endeavors. Throughout the discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, I will argue that although reformist politics have worked in the past to ‘get the ball rolling’ in terms of feminist movement, however, revolutionary stances on masculinized institutions such as the military are necessary to truly create social change.

In a most basic and rudimentary effort to distinguish reformist and revolutionary politics, I offer these definitions. Reformist feminists wish to diminish sexist oppression in the military by reforming its policies and institutional norms to incorporate women as equal entities in the structure. In the United States and other cultures, women have become more involved in the military as soldiers, ranking officials, and as supporters. Reformist feminists attempt to entrench themselves in high administrative positions in order to affect the policy decisions made and, over time, change the institution itself. Revolutionary feminists believe quite the opposite. Rather than attempting to reform a highly masculinized institution that is inherently and irrevocably patriarchal, they advocate for a complete dismantling of the system. Revolutionary feminists do not support women joining the military and becoming a part of the institution and in essence, perpetuating the sexist oppression. Why become a part of the system and perpetuate its violence and oppression rather than overturn it and truly instigate social change?

Although bell hooks’ book was first published in 1984, her theories and ideas are still very relevant to today’s recurrent feminist questions and dilemmas. She argues that “[a]lthough liberal perspectives on feminism include reforms that would have radical implications for society, these are the reforms that will be resisted precisely because they would set the stage for revolutionary transformation were they implemented” (hooks 23). According to hooks, reformist politics will not be effective enough to gain policy in order to affect society at large. “It is evident that society is more responsive to those “feminist” demands that are not threatening, that may even help maintain the status quo” (hooks 23) and that feminist, “reforms have not corresponded with decreased sexist exploitation and/or oppression. Prevailing sexist values and assumptions remain intact, and it has been easy for politically conservative anti-feminists to undermine feminist reforms” (hooks 159). Assuming these statements are true, there is no feasible way for reformist feminists to change the status quo. Staying in the safety of non-threatening demands and policies are not appropriate means to effectively restructuring the military.

Cynthia Enloe addresses these same issues in her book, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. She suggests that there are many means that military recruiters utilize in gaining volunteers and that one of these methods is to deliberately enlist women into the ranks. These recruiters “believe that they need to recruit and deploy women in only those ways that will not subvert the fundamentally masculinized culture of the military. To surrender its masculinized culture might result in few young men joining the ranks at all. Somehow…the military that enlists women must remain…a military that is appealing to men” (Enloe 237-8). Reformist feminists advocate for women to be joining the ranks and bridging the gap within the military to try and reach gender/sex equality. Although this is a valiant goal, the military recruiters are working within their means to get women to join the military and yet making sure that “not too many women should achieve high rank” and that women “should not deprive men of the chance to serve in those posts held most precious to the masculinity-seeking men” (Enloe 238). Instead of finding a way to infiltrate the military to gain equality, women are merely filling the ranks and making up for the loss of male volunteers. Women are at the bottom of the pool getting very few promotions and gaining no equality with men in this endeavor. Young men who join in the military are awarded with ‘first-class citizenship’ whereas women who join are deprived of that privilege. The attempt at reform is thwarted.

Back to the original question at hand, should the military be dismantled? Reformist feminists who argue against total disintegration of the military, suggest that by joining the military and gaining rank allows women to gain ‘first-class citizenship’ and therefore, status and power in society. “Nira Yuval-Davis has been among those feminist theorists who have shed light on the political and cultural processes that define citizenship in such a way that a manly man can slip most comfortably into the cloak of ‘citizen’ and that a man who has served in the state’s military wears that privileging cloak most comfortably of all” (Enloe 245). Are women included in this? Do women gain the status of the ‘highest citizen’ after serving in the military? Enloe argues, “seeing military service as the path to full citizenship status…leaves unexamined the militarization of ‘first-class citizenship’ itself” (Enloe 245). If in fact women were able to gain this ‘first-class citizenship’ after serving in the military, would they truly have combated sexist oppression in the military? Or is this merely playing the patriarchy’s game in order to appear more powerful or important? Audre Lorde in her book, Sister Outsider, would argue that these military women are simply playing the game. She states, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde 123). Women are going to need to do more than ‘play the game’ – they will need to revolutionize the military and the way society envisions citizenship.

In examining the way feminists view citizenship, Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, is a necessary compilation to study. Within Chantal Mouffe’s article, Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics, she addresses the issue of citizenship and the ways in which she believes feminists should be examining the topic. Mouffe argues that “[l]iberal feminists have been fighting for a wide range of new rights for women to make them equal citizens, but without challenging the dominant liberal models of citizenship and politics” (Butler & Scott 373). Much like Lorde’s assertion that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” Mouffe suggests that feminists should be revolutionizing their thought process rather than attempting to gain equality in patriarchal arenas. She demonstrates this view in her analysis of Carole Pateman’s views on liberal citizenship.

Citizenship is, according to Pateman, a patriarchal category: who a “citizen” is, what a citizen does and the arena within which he acts have been constructed in the masculine image. Although women in liberal democracies are now citizens, formal citizenship has been won within a structure of patriarchal power in which women’s qualities are still devalued. Moreover, the call for women’s distinctive capacities to be integrated fully into the public world of citizenship faces what she calls the “Wollstonecraft dilemma”: to demand equality is to accept the patriarchal conception of citizenship which implies that women must become like men while to insist that women’s distinctive attributes, capacities, and activities be given expression and valued as contributing to citizenship is to demand the impossible because such difference is precisely what patriarchal citizenship excludes (Butler & Scott 375).

In light of Pateman’s views on the exclusivity of modern patriarchal citizenship, Mouffe argues that this conception should be remedied, “not by making sexual difference politically relevant to its definition, but by constructing a new conception of citizenship where sexual difference should become effectively nonpertinent” (Butler & Scott 376). Her views on remedying the current lack of equal and acceptable citizenship are brilliant and needed, and the only way to completely restructure something like citizenship, is through revolutionary feminist politics and activism.

It is clear that reformist politics are not appropriate for the current times in regards to citizenship and especially the military. Enloe states that, “publicly challenging militarism has not been a successful strategy for getting generals, cabinet ministers, and powerful legislators to pay attention to the concerns of women” and that, “the presence of women as soldiers is not a reliable indicator of declining state masculinization” (Enloe 287). Revolutionary feminism is needed in order to keep feminist movement from becoming a part of the status quo and to radically change society so as to incorporate all of its members. As already stated, bell hooks defines feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. “Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires” (hooks 26). This feminist politic of revolutionizing ideologies of domination is exactly what is needed in order to dismantle the military and institute an inclusive form of citizenship. It won’t be easy; in fact, feminist movement “actively engages participants in revolutionary struggle. Struggle is rarely safe or pleasurable” (hooks 30). What is most important in order to achieve revolutionary feminist movement against the military, is unlearning the sexism that is perpetuated by institutions as well as oppressors and the victims of oppression. (hooks 43). It is vital to feminist movement that all participants critically analyze their behavior and realize how their lives have been militarized. Through that realization, it is possible to change one’s frame of mind and think through a revolutionary feminist perspective and not the socialized oppressive norms.

So, what next? What’s the next step for feminists? Hooks argues that in order “[t]o build a mass-based feminist movement, we need to have a liberatory ideology that can be shared with everyone. That revolutionary ideology can be created only if the experiences of people on the margin who suffer sexist oppression and other forms of group oppression are understood, addressed, and incorporated” (hooks 163). One of the ways that feminist movement has improved itself is in its attempt to include and understand the marginalized persons that hooks alludes to. As a movement, feminists have taken one step forward, however, there is still so much to accomplish. “Leaders are also needed, and should be individuals who acknowledge their relationship to the group and who are accountable to it” (hooks 163). In order to create a revolutionary movement large enough and powerful enough to tackle huge institutionalized structures, feminists must rethink and reshape the movement’s direction. As difficult as it is and as impossible as it may seem, a form of sisterhood or group unity is necessary. “In the United States, women and men committed to feminist struggle know that we are far outpowered by our opponents, that they not only have access to every type of weaponry known to humankind, but they have both the learned consciousness to do and accept violence as well as the skill to perpetuate it” (hooks 165). This form of overthrow or revolution cannot be the basis for feminist revolution. Being as outnumbered as we are, there is no way to defeat such opponents. “Our emphasis must be on cultural transformation: destroying dualism, eradicating systems of domination” (hooks 165). In a way, revolution is going to take time and effort to work at dismantling not only society’s normative views on women and the military, but also will require the dismantling of a physical, and powerful, institution.

Throughout this discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, it is evident that a revolutionary feminist movement is necessary to effectively alter or change the military system. In addressing the question of whether the military should be reformed or dismantled, bell hooks’ definition of feminism as well as her feminist theory guides us successfully to conclude that revolutionary politics are the only feasible means of dismantling the military. She also offers the movement a means to move forward towards feminist revolution and eventual equality and understanding. As Audre Lorde asserts in Sister Outsider, “it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (Lorde 114). Utilizing hooks’ theories and suggestions to rebuild feminist revolution and recreate an inclusive conception of citizenship, it is possible to not only abandon the military, but also all forms of dominance.

Bibliography
• hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Cambridge: South End Press, 1984.
• Enloe, Cynthia. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000.
• Mouffe, Chantal. “Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics,” in Feminists Theorize the Political. Eds. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. New York: Routledge, 1992, pp. 369-384.
• Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Freedom: Crossing Press, 1984.
• Dietz, Mary G. Turning Operations: Feminism, Arendt, and Politics. New York: Routledge, 2002.
• Nicholson, Linda. “Interpreting Gender,” in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. University of Chicago, Autumn 1994: vol. 20, no.1.
• Denov, Myriam, and Gervais, Christine. “Negotiating (In)Security: Agency, Resistance, and Resourcefulness among Girls Formerly Associated with Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front,” in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. University of Chicago, Summer 2007: vol. 32, no. 4.

Posted by Jessica Englund at 07:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

*Its essay/book report time :)*

Sandra Jackson-Opoku’s The River Where Blood is Born tells the story of nine generations of daughters, the ninth daughter from the daughter of Deepest Memory. The ancestors of the afterlife village at the Place Where Blood is Born are depending on this ninth daughter to keep the village alive. The daughter of Deepest Memory must keep telling their stories so subsequent generations will remember and understand their histories. Angelyn Mitchell in her book, The Freedom to Remember, states, “History is a matter of memory: who is allowed to remember determines what is remembered. What is remembered as well as what is not remembered informs and influences both the present and the future” (Mitchell 110). Throughout the novel, the telling of stories and the keeping of memories is very important to the remembrance of the ancestors and the existence of the Place Where Blood is Born.

Throughout The River Where Blood is Born, the main characters encounter incredible life changes. What holds these women together in the present and the afterlife are the memories and stories. Ama Krah (Proud Mary) is the daughter of Abena Anim, who tells her of the Place Where Blood is Born. Ama and her lover, Kwesi, “had listened to her tales as she toiled in her garden or gathered herbs by Two Rivers. Had grown to near man- and womanhood seeing Abena Anim gaze upriver with eyes that saw more than they could ever know. ‘There is a place, children. A village at the headwaters of one of these rivers. It is the place where I was born’” (Jackson-Opoku 41). Although Kwesi, being an unrelated boy, does not understand Abena Anim’s stories or her reference to her mother calling her to the Place Where Blood is Born. Ama does. “A mother’s voice seemed to call to them upriver, a voice that only Ama heard. A wind seemed to tug them downriver, a force which only Ama felt” (J-O 42). Shortly after this revelation, a pregnant Ama Krah is taken from her home and sold into slavery. According to Harihar Kulkarni, author of Black Feminist Fiction,

Under the most traumatic conditions of slavery and colonization where the slave is ruthlessly torn from his home, from his land and people, denuded of his culture and heritage, uprooted from his history and family, transported under the most inhuman conditions of the sea, transplanted into chattel slavery in an alien land, stripped of his past memories, and religious beliefs and practices and finally, reduced to a mere ‘atom’ without a personality or social identity, it is no more possible for him to be in harmony with the inner self.

Although the harshness of the uprooting of African men and women is quite accurate and disturbing, Ama Krah pushes back and refuses to allow herself to be completely devoid of her upbringing. The stories and memories that Abena Anim has given to Ama Krah allow her to fight back against the slave traders and eventually escape bondage. Simone de Beauvoir in her book, Le Deuxième Sexe, argues, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature” (Kolmar 184). Ama Krah was raised solely by her mother by the river; that being her ‘civilization and society,’ she became a woman who followed and, most importantly, remembered the stories and memories from her mother.

On the slave ship, Ama Krah’s daughter, Diaspora, was born. Unfortunately, however, she was given away to a wealthy family in Barbados who ran The Rivers Estate who renamed her Emilene Winston. Because she was raised away from her mother, Emilene did not have the stories that aided Ama Krah. However, she did have the stories from Nanny Griggs who taught her about Africa and healing. Being a Black woman raised by a white adoptive mother, Nanny Griggs was the only person who gave Emilene some background on the African Diaspora. According to Kulkarni, even though she did not know her life before Barbados, “Knowledge of the true self must be obtained, no matter if one has to make a descent into the dark recesses of one’s own unconscious” (Kulkarni 33). Silence was expected ever since she came to live at The Rivers Estate. Only in the last few lines of her story does Emilene find her voice and recognize her history: “I look around, almost expecting Mother Mercy to answer for me. But she is gone, both my white parents are…My infant son stirs in my arms, rooting to find nourishment at my breast. The rain begins to fall, spattering gently against the roof, speaking to me in voices. We are not lost, we are not nameless, we are not silent.” (J-O 75). The stories from Nanny Griggs and her acknowledgment of her history and voice allow her to accept the ancestors that she had not known and connect her to her family.

Much like Diaspora (Emilene Winston), Earlene Josephs grew up not knowing her mother. Earlene is a singer who, every once in a while will travel to other states or countries to perform. On her way to the Quad Cities, she passes through Simon’s Acres, which triggers in her memories of her father and childhood. “Simon’s Acres, Illinois. Simon. That’s funny; I had me a father named Simon. I remembered him in the same way I do the birds and wildflowers that were a part of a life I lived before this patch of hair on my temple became white” (J-O 96). Feeling pulled or ‘called’ by the nearby river, she makes it to a house owned by a Miss Bryn Mawr. After talking to this woman and her maid, Flossie, Earlene begins to piece things together and eventually brings her memories into one and understands what really happened to her father and their home. Earlene has a flashback to when her father was killed and their home caught fire. She visits Miss Bryn Mawr again the next day but this time, she confronts her about her father stealing their land and murdering her father. Miss Bryn Mawr reacts by throwing Earlene out of her home: “ ‘My daddy never stole a thing in his life, especially from a nigger. You better get on out of here and forget you ever seen this place.’ I stepped through the open door. ‘How can I forget? I’m just beginning to remember” (J-O 109). Although it took until she was 57, Earlene finally discovered her family’s past and understood her connection to history.

Earlene Josephs’ daughter, Darlene, understood and knew her past and her history. Later on in life, like her mother, she discovers not her family but herself and her identity. On her first big trip to Montreal, she feels out of place and odd, but after some reflection and time, she decides to turn her life around. “I was tasting the world and liking it. I was getting ready to come out moving like a mountain…I aimed to find a way to the top of Royal Mountain. I was going to get up there and see what it looked like to have a city spread out at my feet” (J-O 128). As one continues to read, Darlene travels to the Caribbean, New York, and to Africa. According to Alma Jean Billingslea-Brown in her book Crossing Borders Through Folklore, she states “Ultimately, the motif of yearning and return, as [Davies] suggests, delineated a common ground where African people both on the continent and in diaspora could meet and engage one another” (Brown 56-7). In order to be in closer contact with her history and ancestry, she traveled to Africa, where she runs into her second cousin, Alma. While in the Caribbean, Darlene adopts a young girl named Sara Winston who, unbeknownst to her, is a relative. Sara is a minor character in the novel, however, she works with Alma Peeples in Washington D.C. and does go home eventually to connect with her family. In her travels and understanding of her family, Darlene Josephs may be the daughter of Deepest Memory that the ancestors are searching for.

Allie Mae (Alma) Peeples and Big Momma (Bohema Beasley) spend a summer together where Allie Mae changes dramatically especially after hearing Big Momma’s stories. Big Momma, Earlene’s mother, remembers her family and ancestors every month by going to the cemetery and putting flowers on the graves. She teaches Allie Mae how to piecework a quilt and to bring pieces of everything and everyone into it. She shows her how the thread and the pieces come together to create something new from the familiar. More than teaching Allie Mae about family and remembering, she encourages her to tell her own story.

Sometimes Big Momma sews clothes by pinching off patterns – the sleeves from a Butterick, the collar from Simplicity, the bodice from Vogue. Sometimes she even makes her own patterns from brown shopping bag paper. I do the same thing with stories. Pinching off the princess from Snow White, the hero from Sleeping Beauty, the love story from The Little Mermaid, and the happy ending from Cinderella. Big Momma says I’ve been blessed with a story to tell. More and more now, I’m starting to tell stories of my own.

As Allie Mae begins to create and record her own stories, Big Momma teaches her about her body and herself. When Allie Mae gets her first period, Pat (Cinnamon) Brown, her cousin, and Big Momma help her and initiate her into womanhood. “She watches as her womankin oil her cleansed body, working together in the dark, silent room. A clean, folded white rag is positioned between her legs and carefully anchored there by a length of blue beads Big Momma flashes from a cloth sack” (J-O 166). The beads that Big Momma gives to Allie Mae are another story about a hunter and a lion. The beads are strung on a lion’s tail and look and feel like water. They come from Ama Krah when she came across the ocean from Africa. Big Momma gives some history to Allie Mae to take with her to help her remember and keep her connected. She also entrusts Allie Mae with telling the stories after she is gone. “Big Momma sighs. Drops her head and shakes it slowly. Puts away her pins and needles, her threads and scraps. Folds the finished quilt across her lap. ‘And when I’m gone, Little Daughter…I want you to tell mine’” (J-O 183).

In her essay, Coming of age in the African American Novel, Claudine Raynaud argues “Childhood can be either the moment for a happiness never to be retrieved, an age of innocence, or a time already plagued by the torments inherent in the condition of being black in America, as if the protagonist had always already been immersed in experience” (Graham 106). Within Allie Mae’s life, we see her already playing a mature almost maternal role in caring for her mentally retarded brother, Benny. Her mother requires her to take care of the house, make dinner, and take complete care of herself. As a young woman growing up in inner city Chicago, Allie Mae takes on many responsibilities and handles them very efficiently, which may foreshadow an ability to become the daughter of Deepest Memory.
Cinnamon (Pat) Brown is raised separate from her mother, but adored by her father. Lola Brown did not want children and as a result, after giving birth to Cinnamon, would not allow her daughter to call her mother. During the summers spent with Big Momma in Cairo, Cinnamon doesn’t engage in the stories or care about her ancestors. Unlike Allie Mae, Cinnamon does not look up to Big Momma. Her role model is her good friend, Blondine. After she is murdered, Cinnamon adopts her life philosophy: “Spice is the variety of life [and life] ain’t nothing but a party!” (J-O 203). She lives her life in search of spice, mostly at parties because “parties promised pleasure, and pleasure was the primary of life’s seasonings” (J-O 283). Even after her father’s death, Cinnamon and her mother, Lola, never get along. Because she does not remember or care for the stories, Cinnamon does not see the world like she had planned. In fact, she doesn’t even find the pleasure that she seeks.

With the help of Big Momma’s story beads, her own stories, and her guide, Kwesi Omobowale, Alma Peeples travels to Africa in search of the Place Where Blood is Born. More than a reminder, the beads are a guide. “These story beads speak to me in a language I had long forgotten. They come alive in loving, rattling like a snake giving warning. Like the rumble of far-off drums, or the call of nearby waters” (J-O 334). Alma searches for stories everywhere she goes. When Kwesi and Alma are in a danfo waiting to leave Lagos, a woman comes running to get in before it leaves. Alma braids her hair, allows her to sit, and talks to her trying to discover her story and her history. She searches for her own genealogy and history while always trying to discover everyone else’s stories. She leaves behind a legacy and written accounts of the stories and memories she has collected throughout her life. Because she searches so heartily and remembers so much, one could argue that she is the daughter of Deepest Memory although Jackson-Opoku does not answer that question for us.

The stories of these nine daughters take us on a journey to find the daughter of Deepest Memory. The ancestors of the River Where Blood is Born, at the end of the novel, begin to settle down and trust that their daughter will arrive. The stories told and memories kept throughout the book throughout the generations keeps the ancestors and their village alive. In doing so, the daughters discover their own histories as well as those of their family. Alma Peeples and Darlene Josephs go as far as Africa to trace their roots. As Angelyn Mitchell states, those who remember and what is remembered influence the present and the future (Mitchell 110). These women’s journeys uphold the ancestry and slowly make it back to the Two Rivers where if they follow the blood, they will cross over to the Place Where Blood is Born.

Works Cited
• Mitchell, Angelyn. The Freedom to Remember: Narrative, Slavery, and Gender in Contemporary Black Women’s Fiction. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, 2002.
• Kulkarni, Harihar. Black Feminist Fiction: A March Towards Liberation. Creative Books, New Delhi, 1999.
• Kolmar, Wendy; Bartkowski, Frances. Feminist Theory: A Reader. 2nd Edition. McGraw Hill, New York, 2005.
• Graham, Maryemma. The African American Novel. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. Claudine Raynaud, Coming of age in the African American Novel. (106-121).
• Billingslea-Brown, Alma Jean. Crossing Borders Through Folklore: African American Women’s Fiction and Art. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 1999.
• Jackson-Opoku, Sandra. The River Where Blood is Born. The Ballantine Publishing Group, Toronto, 1997.

Posted by Jessica Englund at 07:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)