I believe there are a lot of useful things that can happen when women get together to discuss what being a women has meant for their lives, and possibilities for rethinking gendered experience. But I am suspicious of any movement that claims to be “revolutionary” when its language and…
a movement is defined by a bunch of things, for three, there’s what it aspires to be, what it’s becoming and what it actually is. for a group, those that identify as members have some things to live up to -beyond- their personal feelings. if they can’t, then they don’t really belong, and should be prevented from identifying as a member without being challenged.
especially in the more civilised places, nearly everyone that’s not a fundamentalist nut agrees with and espouses views that comport with the overall theme of feminism. problem is, of those who identify as feminists, many use it as a front to allow them freedom to foment violence and hatred against the innocent and ignorant.
if feminism can be defined differently, depending on who is doing the defining, it can mean very different things. like many groups, an outsider doing the defining, has to judge by what they observe, if what they observe is corruption and hate, then that’s what they will define it as. if that outsider knows what the group is -supposed- to be, yet doesn’t see it, even though they would have gladly allied, they would deny membership.
if the feminist movements can’t keep those on the inside from making them seem like they’re rotten at the core with hate and hypocrisy… feminism itself will die. every time there’s ‘oh, i don’t really hate all men and wish they would all just die, i was only venting’ from someone important in the movement, that’s another nail in the coffin. the figureheads need to remain pure, disposed of when sullied.
i personally identify as feminist because of what it aspires to be. however, what it -is- could make me reluctant to identify as such outside a sympathetic private setting.