And another another great one:

The Language We Use
Jeff Goldstein is a paste-eating ‘tard. Ann Coulter is an anorexic cunt with an Adam’s apple. Hey Michelle Malkin, me love you long time!

Is this ok on left-wing blogs?

In fact, the whole recent Carnival of Feminists is great so far, so I'll just link to that and let you click away for yourselves, if you're so inclined.

bulemia isn't a survival strategy; it is a mental illness, and it will likely kill you.

obviously women are really neat people, but i'm not sure i totally follow her argument...?

I think the point is that holding individual women responsible for choices forced on them by a patriarchal system -- buying into the idea that our bodies are up for public comment and analysis, for example -- is pointless, and against feminism's goal, which is to find ways to understand how the system forces women into bad choices, and to fix the system so that doesn't happen, rather than blaming women for making bad choices.

you know, this is a very good post, occhi. Surely worthy of a mefi FPP. I will have to dig in further. thanks!

Really? It seems more a declaration of "Oh things are bad and we can't change them so why bother!" Her main point is that feminists now should be "building their strength" and that since all choices are equally bad ('casue dying from anorexia equivalent to a healthy attitude towards food) we should not act. It's relativist nonsense, and I don't buy it for a minute. There are good and bad choices. The refusal to even look for better individual solutions (because they're "personal" not "collective") is a great excuse to let others suffer.

The original Hanisch essay is similalrly dismissive of feminists who act "without theory". For instance:

The members
of one group want to set up a private daycare center
without any real analysis of what could be done to
make it better for little girls, much less any analysis
of how that center hastens the revolution.

I don't know about you, but I'd count a daycare centre as a much bigger win than some nebulous and future political solution.

This isn't snark, by the way, it's frustration and anger with the matiarchal-feminist architecture that criticizes all individual actions without ever seeming to do stuff themselves. I've been part of endless "committees" that talk and talk about the right political action (and Hanisch's essay is very popular with them), while real projects are done half-assed or rather in spite of the organizing committee.

so... it's essentially an argument from the school of lipstick feminism, then? as something of a third waver, myself, i find this line of reasoning repulsive, ignorantly self-serving, and counterproductive. athough, i wont complain if anyone wants to post tits.

Wedge, I don't think it is lipstick feminism really. Lipstick feminism reacts to many things that other feminists find repulsive by claiming that they can be subverted and that they aren't necessarily degrading.
I think there's two points being made in the post, only one of which I agree with. The first is that we shouldn't be blaming the victims of bulimia, and that includes subconsciously feeling superior because they've "given in" to the patriarchy in such a catastrophic way.

The second point which I think you reacted to in your first comment 'bulimia is a disease...' is that she seems to be saying that bulimia is a legitimate coping strategy in reaction to patriarchal beauty standards. I agree with you there. One might as well say that because catatonic depression in teenagers is a mental coping mechanism to overwhelming stress and unrealistic expectations we should 'not take it away from them'. It may be a coping mechanism but it is an unhealthy one, as is bulimia.

It's certainly true that from a strategic point of view, attacking the root cause of these body dysmorphic disorders (the commodification of women's bodies) is the ultimate aim, but that's hard. Really hard. As bonehead notes, it can all too easily turn into committee meeting after committee meeting with nary a thing done.

It's also simply not true that dealing with individual problems is useless because the underlying brokenness isn't being fixed. I don't know how to fix the media, how to fix our society, and tons of books and academic articles notwithstanding, I don't think anyone else does either. What I do know how to do is how to be a good and thoughtful person in my daily interactions, how to refuse to engage in objectifying behavior myself and how to speak to other men when I see or hear them do it. Until someone figures out how to fix the underlying problems I will continue to live my life by the philosophy of Bill & Ted.

Oh, and thanks for the link occhiblu, I agree that it would make a great fpp, though I dread to think of the ensuing comments.

ah.. well said, atrazine

Occhi, awesome post! I agree that it would probably turn into a mefi nightmare...

I think the point about bulimia is that calling it a disease negates the underlying struggle. If someone (usually young women, or at least starting in adolescence and carrying on through adulthood) seeks a sense of agency by controlling their intake of food, then calling it a disease and making that person a victim completely undermines that primary need for control (the root cause).

So "not taking away your bulimia" isn't a matter of allowing someone to continue harming themselves, it's more along the lines of helping that person find their own path away from self-harm. That's why there are girls who are hospitalized with anorexia, strapped into beds with feeding tubes, who are never going to get better. Because they still have no control of the situation, their bodies, their identities. I don't think she means that an eating disorder is legitimate coping mechanism that can remain untreated.

Hm. Here's a very interesting article at The Guardian that is somewhat related: Thongs, implants and the death of real passion, about the book "Female Chauvinist Pigs".

Hate the article title (and the book title), but it does articulate something that I've found puzzling... and, that, I suppose, makes me feel distinctly "out-of-sync" with current culture in a way that nothing else has. Music? Technology? Body Modding? There's nothing I can think of that makes me shake my head and go "the kids these days!" But on this issue, I can't reconcile myself to current reality. Though, if the book's author is correct at all, the fact that I'm not much of a consumer may be a factor.

I'm digressing a bit, but the entire thrust (heh) of the reviewed book is exactly this sort of blame of individual women, and when the interviewer touches (heh) on this subject:

wonder if she has seen anything recently - any film, or music video, or TV show - that depicts an alternative, more complex sexuality than the jiggling bottoms normally on offer. After all, if there is no alternative model out there, then doesn't it make sense that women, and especially young women, might choose a stereotypical form of sexuality over and above no sexuality at all?

The author doesn't have much of a response. I'm still in her corner, but I do agree with the interviewer that the "attack-mode" presentation is unfortunate and unproductive.

Also, "big-lipped, zeppelin-breasted, supersexualised women". Just had to repeat that line, because it cracks me up.

You know, on second thought, it kind of kills me that we can't have this type of conversation over *there*. Lord knows there are enough intelligent people who might have something interesting to offer.

I say, if you're up to it, this would/could/should be a kickass FPP. Trolls or no.

It is depressing that we can't have an have this type of intelligent conversation over there. But hasn't that been the norm for a while now, even in the best of crowd the word "feminism" pops up and suddenly smart people go bananas.

great article... thx taz!

I'm not sure I understand why people are reading the article as "It's pointless to do anything." I read it as, "It's pointless to attack individual women who make different choices than you do. Rather than rolling your eyes because your friend is dieting, and you see that as 'giving into the partriarchy,' stop attacking that one individual woman for making what can be seen as a valid choice in a fucked-up system (that is, her being thinner probably *will* help her, because the system is fucked up) and start trying to change the system."

Maybe I see that immediately because I'm currently fed up a bit with both the "choice feminism" argument that posits that any choice a woman makes is inherently feminist, because she made it (when I see that a fucked-up society is necessarily going to limit your choices, so not all choices can be made freely, especially by women), and with the "All women who don't do X, Y, and Z cannot be feminists! I'm more enlightened than you, you brainwashed hussies!" thing that's been popping up a lot, most recently in the blow job debate that she mentions -- apparently any woman who gives blow jobs has lost the right to call herself a feminist, according to a lot of influential feminist bloggers (which... is so ridiculous I couldn't even finish reading the whole debate).

I think she's reacting to those current trends, and saying we need to stop acting holier-than-thou, and we also need to stop acting like society isn't somehow forcing women into choices they wouldn't make otherwise.

I also think the bulimia thing is a red herring; she mentions it not because she thinks bulimia is fine and dandy but to illustrate how attached a person can get to an unhealthy behavior. Yes, bulimia was probably a bad example. But I think she's using it as an example, not the thrust of her argument.

And as for MeFi.... I don't know. When I posted about Larry Summers I got accused of having sand in my vagina, and I'm just not really interested in a repeat.

Actually, I'm less interested in a repeat mainly because the thread from my last post made me incredibly sad -- I couldn't understand how so many people were just dismissing so many women's experiences. Which, really, falls into what the Feministe article I linked to above is talking about. I have a really hard time dealing with guys who think that just because they think it's OK for women to work outside the home, or whatever, that they don't have to question any of their other assumptions, behaviors, and attitudes, and anyone who asks them to do so is a no-humor hairy-legged castrating bitch who just needs a good deep dicking.

Oh, on the other hand, what the fuck. I'll post it once I'm done reading all the articles. Maybe it'll do someone some good.

madam, the blue suits you very nicely.

great post.

and congratulations on the "sand in vagina" thing. I did not realize it was you! It was hilarious (in a sort of sad way) but I would not be very offended. You know what is out there!

Thanks occhiblu, that is a great essay. This is a great discussion. :)

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

I don't really have time to read this whole thing right now, but wanted to say that I think women are really neat people, collectively and individually.

I am posting here to avoid overly moderating my own thread, and to avoid taking someone's head off:

As a woman, I DO NOT HAVE A BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED LOVE AFFAIR WITH CLEANING. I DON'T, CONTRARY TO MANY IMAGES ON TELEVISION ADVERTISING, FIND SNIFFING PINE SOL A FUN HOBBY. VACUUMING DOES NOT BRING ME TO ORGASM. WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME IS NOT SOMEHOW BEYOND MY MEAGER FEMININE CAPABILITIES AND A DENIAL OF MY TRUE ROLE IN LIFE.

That is all. Thank you.