I read your ice cold freezing blogs all weekend, disgusted by the cluelessness and miles to go before you take the first step. Final straw was this post at Feminism 101, detailing all the bleeding obvious feminist denunciations like female circumcision, routine maternal episiotomies, routine caesarean sections, cosmetic vaginal labiaplasty, radical clitoridectomies, clitoral excision, infibulation… seems every permutation of female genital mutilation gets its own bulleted outrage, and that sums up feminist condemnation of medical procedures. Come now, where’s the spark?
I know why it’s easier to look at injustice that happens in a third world country than it is to look at what’s going on close to home. It means you’re scared. And manufactured outrage comes de rigueur with identity politics. It’s on the list.
Crickets chirp at what’s happening in your own back yard; not a single post in the feminist blogoshphere about Simone D., New York Hispanic woman with an impressive story of injustice and a rather pressing need for acts which activists can and are being urged to do on her behalf in the activist way they pride themselves on. Given the right conditions. Which are what again?
I was looking for a place to introduce her story, a feminist blog where the burden would be rightly taken up, given it’s a feminist issue.
So what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
Rational people often assume that some opinions and judgements are so obviously part of their worldview that they really don’t need to be said. It seems a transparently clear expectation that if a person already knows that one supports issues A and C and opposes issues X and Z, then they ought to conclude that one is likely to also oppose issue Y and also support issue B. Indeed, it is a textbook example of logical inference.
Is that what feminism is, wordplay, image-building, impression management? Disembodied rhetoric while living women suffer routine legalized brutalities that you don’t want to know exist, and pre-empt any attempt at calling your attention to because
some folks, for ideological reasons, are so invested in performing a gloating gotcha dance that they ignore all the precepts of logical inference and triumphantly announce that they have caught one out, oh yes indeed, in not jumping through the denunciation hoops with sufficient spangles and spotlights that they couldn’t possibly miss it.
That’s a set up, nowhere to go from there. Introduce a pressing issue missing from that feminist list of complaints and you end up on the list yourself. Why they play these little princess games is beyond the fuck me. Grow up, learn, expand, listen, I want much more from feminists but right now I’ll settle for an opening.
Before flouncing I click the link at Feminism 101 to a page of recommended reading material, the feminist classics, I see they are claiming Kate Millet. Kate Millet, you don’t say. How dare they. Kate Millet is invisible to feminists, they spit on her. But she’s at the top of the list! Scholarship Kate, yes, safe and middle class. Hardship paper slippers Kate, nah, too honest, scary, invisible, trash. God I hate this.
The feminist community should be all over Simone D’s story.
Yes, identity politics has them so screwed up they ignore what has not been neatly dileneated as a gendered violation. But this has, they have simply not done their homework.
I will find the theory, some papers, the scholarship, we’re all lawyers now, build your case, god help anyone who tries to inject an issue into the discourse without the computer-crashing pdf files, the intoxicating and safe theoretical argument, the masters tools will explain it all, except why they need to be told that the elimination of ECT is a feminist imperative. It’s not that hard to empathize, all you have to do is remember.
How do you think it feels, and when do you think it stops?