i need to start again.
Just for the record, I would like to offer the possibility of a working definition of feminism. In my digestion of several posts on the concept of "Feminist media" I noticed several confusing and contradicting statements. My main concern is the lack of clarity on the goal of feminist media. Women artists and not inherently feminist, women on screen are not inherently feminist, discussion regarding sex, power, race, or class are NOT INHERENTLY feminist. Also, can we clarify the difference between watching "feminist media" and analyzing media through a "feminist lense"? Because these are two very different events. It is incorrect to operate under the assumption that all of the films screened in class are inherently "feminist" because they were viewed in a feminist film context. Not the same. Not the same at all. Rachel never said to my knowlede that these were all feminist films, they were films we were instructed to analyze under a feminist lense.
Ex) The Piano. Not a feminist film. If you disagree with me, please! tell me! engage with me! tell me your arguement. I would love to discuss, mostly because I feel so strongly about this subject. When feminist tropes are mistaken for feminism, the result is a devestating landslide of destructive, unintentional ignorance.
I feel its safe to use bell hooks definition of feminism. That won't get me into too much trouble right? She is a highly respected scholar and writer and she seems credible enough to avoid conflict..
“Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression”
So,
can we start over now?
where do we go from here?
Also,
I'm done with equality. We've all "agreed" on equlity, we've "done that."
I want more. I want liberation.
"If equality means entitlement to an equal share of the profits of economic tyranny, it is irreconcilable with liberation. Freedom in an unfree world is merely licence to exploit." (greer)