ladies and gentlemen…

…I’ve been checking back on that Feministe post about ladies in the military, because apparently I hate myself. Now, allow me to present the worst “feminist” on the internet, and a brief illustration of why intersectional analysis is important.

Many feminists wouldn’t support it; but if it was legal to attack and beat queers, I would object to women being excluded from the activity.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe in moral absolutism. Morality is subjective. is I think women should be able to choose if they want to go college by oppressing people in developing countries, if men are also given that choice.

(source: here, at the blog of one of Feministe’s commenters.)

My two main thoughts regarding this are “Go fuck yourself” and also “What on earth is wrong with you?” Not the most constructive, but really, what can you say to this? And someone saying “if it was legal to attack and beat queers” clearly does not know a whole lot about how queer-bashers can get off scot-free (and in some cases, it’s the queer folks who defend themselves who get punished – see the case of the New Jersey 4). Maybe it’s technically illegal, but sometimes that doesn’t mean a whole lot. And someone whuffling about “moral absolutism” when the issue at hand is the slaughter of people who have inconvenienced certain imperialistic interests is fucking repulsive. Again, I am not a pacifist and I think that armed conflict is sometimes necessary. I do love seeing those WW2 pictures of fresh-faced young Soviet girls who spent the war shooting Nazis in the head (not that I am pro-Soviet, just pro-shooting Nazis in the head). But who are the women getting the choice, here? And who are the women who suffer as a result of that choice? Should I just not give two fucks about the latter group so I can get a big boner over the former group being all empowered? If you think so, you’re not fucking feminist. Too bad, so sad.


~ by Smellen on June 1, 2010.

4 Responses to “ladies and gentlemen…”

  1. Yeah, I can’t comprehend that position on women joining the ranks of queer-bashers, either. I think a lot of people take that position because they aren’t imagining how they’d feel if the violence were being imposed on them – it’s easy for someone to argue that women should have the ‘equal right’ to drop bombs on some vague, amorphous ‘other’; but if you were to ask these people whether women should have the ‘equal right’ to drop bombs on them and their loved ones, then they get iffy.

    • Yeah, my mind is just blown because I thought we (that is, the feminist movement in the United States) established the importance of intersectional analysis in, like, the early ’80s – you know, systems of oppression are interconnected and we can’t isolate one, we have to tackle them all, so talking about women’s “right” to bash queers (um, what about queer ladies? Hello?) as a feminist thing is utterly nonsensical. I guess that’s just the naivete that comes out from generally hanging with rad feminist ladies.

      I understand that opposition to women in the military generally comes from a place of sexism, or at least gender-essentialist concepts of how ladies think and what they do, and that does need addressing. But I think we also need to address systemic problems in the military. As I have said previously, I’m not a pacifist and do think armed conflict is the most practical option at times, but there are reasons I’ve never enlisted – I don’t want to end up somewhere like Iraq, just because some president wants a piece of a country’s natural resources and an infantile grudge against that country’s (admittedly-awful) ruler. I don’t want higher-ups to be telling me “yeah, torture those prisoners, who cares?” (as in the Abu Ghraib case). I don’t pretend to know what the solutions are to those issues, but I think it goes beyond “get some ladies in there!”

  2. I recently had a comment on Threadbared about how the harem pant “liberated” white women from their heavy skirts at the turn of the 20th century, and isn’t that awesome? Uhhhh….

    I ignored it because I don’t want to waste my time.

    • Did that person also consider female coal-mine laborers to be ahead of their time, since they wore pants out of necessity to work 18-hour days and get black lung? I am always amazed when people have such little sense of context. Not that I pick up on everything right away, but jeez, wouldn’t someone who presumably knew a little about Victorian dress reform know a little bit about the society from which it sprung?

      that does remind me that I need to read more about Victorian dress reform/health movements/etc. I do find wacky antique rhetoric quite entertaining.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: