I don't like being commanded.

[x_los]

The 10 Commandments (http://jezebel.com/5527723/the-10-commandments-of-pop-culture-feminism) has some good points, but it's frustrating--I feel it should have been edited for coherence?

5. Thou shalt vote with thy wallet (also known as the "I will not pay $12 to see ‘I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell' commandment.")

6. Thou shalt consume shitty forms of media (i.e. tabloids, reality TV) to be aware of what the "mainstream media" is saying about (and to) women and girls.

 

5 indicates that I can patronize alternate media with sex images I don't find degrading as a feminist gesture--6 speaks to the need not to isolate myself within a narrow, rarefied cultural echelon, wherein I only interact with educated social justice people and thoughtful media. These are contradictory drives that the article doesn't acknowledge as contradictory, or seek to reconcile? In real terms, I'm not sure what 6 is telling me to do?

Also:
 

1. Thou shalt not see a sexist, misogynistic ad, say "that sucks" and leave it at that.

and

7. Thou shalt write letters, make phone calls, and send emails to let Dodge know you won't buy their cars or to tell GoDaddy.com that you'll look elsewhere for a domain (or ? or ?).

These need to be better connected as points? In isolation, one lacks a workable IMPERATIVE. 'If not that, then what? Oh, point /seven/.'

 Also there's an edge of what, within the article, they remind you to /avoid/ doing: critiquing women for their survival strategies. If the barrage of sexism is so omnipresent that women are too WORN to attack /every/ instance, or not to prioritize more egregious violations and/or cases where they think their protest may be more effective, I kind of get that?

It's necessary to identify, like with monastic devotion, the Contemplative and Active branches of feminism as /equally/ important, and complimentary, sure.  But it seems really simplistic to say 'challenge everything omg don't be a slacker!!', like--okay, ham-fisted analogy, but remember in Bowling for Columbine, the woman Moore followed who (he made the case) was consistently, systematically punished for her poverty, told by a variety of agencies that her lack of initiative was at fault for her condition? A woman can /choose/ to be an activist, but she is not /obligated/ to devote all of her time and energy to ceaseless activism at the expense of her life and personhood. To phrase this in this manner implies that sexism is her fault, her /problem/, even as her institutional poverty was the 'fault' of the woman in the documentary who didn't Work Hard Enough to End It.

It's one thing to emphasize the importance of putting feminist thought into action, and a /different/, flawed thing to demand CONSTANT VIGILANCE!! of every woman who considers herself a feminist, like you're feminist!Mad Eye Moody.   

Badly realized feminism is, in its way, worse than BLATANT SEXISM, because you don’t immediately tune it out? It takes you /so long/ to figure out what's creepy about it. Which feels wrong to say because surely any feminist thought is adding to the net good? Like, despite their issues, the Vagina Monologues are still Good Work, right? And doing them still a good use of one's time? Sometimes the nebulous nature of social justice work exhilarates me with its complications, juxtapositions and intersectionality, and sometimes it just guts me that the work I've done could be interpreted as meaningless or even harmful via a perspective of greater hindsight. Didn't the people taking aboriginal and native american children away from their parents to learn English think themselves not only morally justified, but /progressive/? Don't we now look back at a vast array of social justice initiatives and find them worse than useless, backward-moving, almost reactionary? Even if they were necessary in the development of our thinking about movements  and issues, /still/, to be the retrograde motion in a Ptolemaic model of social justice would be ghastly.

And I'd call this a light instance of internalized sexism? To see that within the feminist blogosphere is depressing.

Comments

[evilawyer.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with this article, from the perspective of my aged eyes, is the focus on "pop culture." I'm sorry but, by definition, "pop culture" means "frivolous, unenduring and not-to-be-taken seriously." No conversation of feminism that is focused on "pop culture" and only "pop culture" can be of any effect because the symbols complained of are impermanent. Yes, I can rail all I want about a shapely 25-year-girl shouldn't be draped across a VW bug but until the world listens to the fact that the female gender should not be viewed as a means pushing male genes into the next generation (i.e., genocide and rape in wars in even "civilized" countries) and that control of women's reproductive capability is not the key to wealth from both a practical and evolutionarily-instilled viewpoint nothing will change. That a man looks at an ad and says "Hey, nice tits" is not the end of the world. I say it myself. That a man looks at an ad and thinks "This is why women aren't good for anything but breeding" needs to be met head on, but writing to Volkswagen and Proctor Gamble ain't gonna do shit about it. It requires women stepping up and saying "I can do what needs to be done, and what needs to be done is not reading an article about Lindsey Lohan (Evilawyer still doesn't know who she is). Let me show you."

[eclective.livejournal.com]

I... yeah. I have this problem, so much. That you can never ever point out the reactionary/self-defeating stuff in feminism/insert-movement-ism here, because anything but anything that is feminist/etc. is a noble thing and if you protest against it, you're part of the problem. But no social justice initiative can be perfect - it's a human invention - and I think that it's essential to its development to exercise criticism from within to make sure we're actually on the right rails.

A woman can /choose/ to be an activist, but she is not /obligated/ to devote all of her time and energy to ceaseless activism at the expense of her life and personhood. To phrase this in this manner implies that sexism is her fault, her /problem/

oh god thank you I have been wanting someone to put this into words for so long.

[x-los.livejournal.com]

But no social justice initiative can be perfect - it's a human invention - and I think that it's essential to its development to exercise criticism from within to make sure we're actually on the right rails.

God, SO much.

[sovietkitsch.livejournal.com]

Haha, I posted this on Facebook (where another friend just ripped it to shreds as well) so should I defend it? I won't defend the writing - it's bad. However, I like the message OK, and I don't think it's really aimed at people who already have a deep understanding of feminism. I posted it in the hopes that someone who really hadn't thought all that much about feminism or equality would read it and maybe be more likely to become a critical consumer.

Other thoughts:
I think 6 is just telling you to be aware of pop culture. You can't fight or critique something that you ignore. I definitely think 5 is more important, since it would take a huge effort to actually not consume pop culture at all.
I don't think it's only for women. Men should do all those things too. In reality, it's going to be 90% women, but oh well, this is about what how it should be. I have no problem saying that everyone should question pop culture.
I don't mind the "thou shalt" - I find it more amusing than bossy.

Jezebel is definitely watered-down feminism (though it's the discussions about race there that really set me off), but I don't think it's useless, or worse than blatant sexism.

[vonquixote.livejournal.com]

I think 6 is just telling you to be aware of pop culture. You can't fight or critique something that you ignore. I definitely think 5 is more important, since it would take a huge effort to actually not consume pop culture at all.

I concur. You'd have to live a sheltered life to have no contact with transient popular culture at all, but there's a difference between having accidental, everyday, critically astute contact with it and actively seeking it out, spending money on it, and devoting your attention/thoughts/actions to it.

That said, voting with the wallet - that's to say, voting against with the wallet - runs into a more mechanistic form of Down's Paradox (in which it's hard to determine how much difference an individual 'vote' actually makes), but I'm assuming that's what we have organised boycotting girlcotting personcotting Not Spending Money On Shit We Don't Approve Of movements, signal boosts and the like for.