Happiness (Is a Warm Gun)

| 3 Comments
Hey,

I'm midway through the Admed "Killing Joy" article, and I just wanted to pose a question before I forget it.  Can we relate her argument back to Valarie Solonas, or rather, to the interpretations of her actions?  I'm thinking particularly about Ahmed's argument that positioning feminists as inherently angry, as sore losers who are pissed that they can't be happy in domestic bliss like everyone else, is a way of ignoring the causes of that anger.  Did the focus on Solonas's anger, her mental illness, her clear dislike of men, become a way of avoiding dialogues about what pissed her off in the first place?

Also I just really liked the title I came up with for this question.

3 Comments

I agree, fabulous title!

i agree with your thought pattern here, and i think we can relate it back to solonas. or really the larger notion of the "f" word in general. buy focusing on the feminist as an angry, pissed off, killjoy. you're right on. we can easily ignore that issues they bring up that make us uncomfortable. (we and us, being not we or us, of course). this is probably also why so few people identify as a feminist these days...

which makes me think of this article i posted on fb a while back: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/07/feminist-f-word-young-women

I agree as well! I think that another factor behind dismissing Solonas-type anger as "crazy-angry-femininst" is that it serves to hide (as well as avoid) the real issues. The patriarchal system benefits from dismissing this type of anger. If it were acknowledged, it might actually be productive. It's better for the "system" (can I say "the man"!?) to say that this is just a crazy feminist, not someone who is facing real issues that many women face. By accusing her of craziness, her feelings are being isolated, and it seems that she's the only one who's angry.

Leave a comment