Why the disparity/difference?

I think the difference for me is that when men are anti-choice, they are forcing their beliefs on women. When men are pro-choice, they leave the choice up to women.

the point was that women aren’t allowed to dress immodestly, so the natural response was to dress immodestly. Had the guy added that women solving complex mathematical equations leads to hurricanes, I’m sure we would’ve gotten right onto that as well.

That’s a good point. I think, also, that the impetus for Brainquake was to bring more cultural relevance to the people of Iran. I recall plenty of Twitter-talk about the issues of Middle Eastern ethnicities and race being absent from the discussion over boob/brain/femquake.

So clearly, there are multiple intersections needing to be addressed.

I just don’t see how the two compare, really, and why people posit them as alternatives.

Yes, exactly! :) I didn’t like the way people were interpreting and re-interpreting boobquake as being versus brainquake. That’s why the first thing I did with Femquake was link to both events supportively.

Thanks again for stopping by and leaving a note.

Just to clarify, I am perfectly aware that calls for equality are much needed in many (all) parts of the world. I am totally, completely on board with that. All I wanted to say with my comment was: Boobquake was one very specific event in response to one very specific comment. Femquake seemed to me at a glance to simply be, well, regular feminism. Of bloody COURSE we should show brains as well as boobs, and y’know, whatever other assets we may have. But in this case, the point was that women aren’t allowed to dress immodestly, so the natural response was to dress immodestly. Had the guy added that women solving complex mathematical equations leads to hurricanes, I’m sure we would’ve gotten right onto that as well.

I just don’t see how the two compare, really, and why people posit them as alternatives.

The problem that I find with [your] paragraph above is that equality between the sexes does not currently exist. Things have certainly improved for women over the past couple of centuries since, but we got to where we are because there were leaders. A leader can be somebody organizing a protest or it could be someone who says something that nobody else has said before.

Right. I’m with you on this. Did you hear me say that leaders weren’t necessary, or useful, or valuable, or important? If so, then, oops, either I misspoke or you misinterpreted or both! I’ll try to say things another way, next time.

In the case of Femquake, you were leading; you came up with an idea and you asked people to participate in your event. Maybe you don’t feel that you were the leader of Femquake, but when you saw that I credited Feministing in my post, you did point out that you were the one who came up with the event.

Is pointing out misinformation the same as leadership? Is creation the same as leadership? These are distinctions I don’t see you making, but they are important.

Leadership is a concept devoid of intent and full of action: a leader is someone who rules, guides or inspires others.

All of us who started a “*quake” are leaders. But so are the many people who spread the word about the events. Jennifer McCreight could not possibly have done what she did without the leadership of her “followers”, which I count myself among.

In segregating the “*quake” events from one another and placing me at the head of Femquake independent of the full context, it feels to me that you disavow the inspirational, necessary role that McCreight, Negar Mottahedeh, and Golbarg Bashi played in inspiring my actions. I view them as my leaders here. Please give them as well as the unnamed masses of courageous women (and men, in some cases) who participated that same courtesy when you discuss Femquake.

Having said that, feminism is hierarchal. I’m sure that many Black feminists would tell you that. We aren’t going to achieve equality between everybody if we don’t acknowledge that there isn’t equality between the sexes or even between different classes of women. Sojourner Truth may have been ahead of her time when she asked, “Ain’t I a woman?” but her words are still relevant today and she was a leader too.

It’s certainly a terrible thing, in my view, that black women are treated with less dignity than white women merely for being black and women. Does that make feminism or feminist ideals hierarchical? You seem to be saying so, and I disagree. Feminism is about gender equality, and that concept–even in an imperfect world–is distinct from racial equality.

For instance, adultism is discrimination against anyone who is not an adult. Would you say that black children face more discrimination than white children? I would say so, and while the intersections of adultism and racism are prevalent, I don’t think it’s helpful to view the concept of racial equality as hierarchical, just as I don’t think it’s helpful to view feminism/gender equality as hierarchical, either.

This time, by failing to make clear the distinctions in multiple prejudices, one risks doing a disservice to the people who suffer from more than one system of oppression because one too easily masks the other.

So, black women face the intersection of two kinds of prejudice: racism and sexism. I’m not arguing against that, disavowing that reality, or belittling that unfortunate truth. Did you get the impression that I “don’t acknowledge that there isn’t equality between the sexes or even between different classes of women”? If so, again…well, I can either try again or you can perhaps re-read my comments with a different mindset. I’m up for both options. :)

Our society is still a society where women constantly have to prove themselves as a whole. Men don’t have to prove that men are good at math and science or that men are capable of leading.

Being good at math and science or that we are capable of leading does not mean that men don’t have to prove themselves as a whole. Feminism aims to liberate men as well as women. Feminism is wonderful because it can liberate the oppressor as well as the oppressed.

Men have to prove that it is okay for them to be ‘sensitive,’ that it is okay for us to look ‘pretty,’ that it is okay for us to desire care and protection from our partners, rather than take assumed roles as “protectors” of women.

People looked at us funny when my girlfriend hugged me while I curled up into a ball in her arms on the subway in New York City. They aren’t used to such a scene. I feel that this is as much a sign of men’s oppression as it is of women’s.

I appreciate that I have privilege as a man, but that privilege comes at a huge cost. That painful cost is invisible to most men and, unfortunately, to many women who call themselves feminist, too. Please don’t belittle the negative effects gender inequality has on men when you speak of feminism.

As I am certain you know, it really hurts when someone does that.

The idea that the movement will go forward as a whole without leaders and with everyone on an equal footing is a fantasy. Even somebody who is telling everyone to get along is leading.

Hmm. I really have to wonder where this insistence that I’m talking about categorically doing away with leaders is coming from. Can you maybe point me at an earlier part of this conversation that lead you to believe that so we can look at it more closely?

More to the point, leadership–and hierarchies–are very useful. But that is not to say that oppression is ever acceptable. A hierarchy is not oppressive on its own, but rather when someone is unable to move from one position in the hierarchy to another of their own volition.

For example, it’s oppressive that migrant workers are so thoroughly stymied by the legal system from getting well-paying jobs when they first arrive in the country. That’s an example of racial oppression formed by a classist hierarchy and enforced by law. If America were a truly post-racial country, however, those legal and social obstacles to getting good jobs based on race would disappear because everyone would have equal opportunity. However, it would still (rightfully) be the case that the people who wanted to earn more money would do so, while the people who cared more about other things (maybe family, or what-have-you) would not.

Is it oppressive for a woman who wants to be a homemaker to have equal opportunity to choose between homemaking and astrophysics? No. It is only oppressive when she is not given that choice, or is disempowered from enacting either reality.

Even if that person’s intention is to get everyone on an equal footing, they’re still telling them what they should do.

Ultimately, the issue is that if one is more willing to hear support for “get everyone on an equal footing” from a woman than from a man, the issue is not really about leadership, is it? It is about gender.

I think feminism’s allies–regardless of their gender–deserve equal support. They are your allies, and you are after equality, aren’t you?

I’ve been aware that sexism runs both ways ever since I was a kid and heard about as many negative stereotypes of boys coming from girls as the reverse, but your blog has really woken me up to the extent of it. (Specifically, the entries dealing with your desire to be considered a beautiful and sexualized person in your own right rather than having any assessment of that based on how attractive a girlfriend you had.) The response to your Femquake is telling – we still have a long way to go to understand true respect and equality between groups. The backlash over Boobquake was interesting and amusing to me specifically because I’ve read enough of Jennifer McCreight’s blog to know she’s quite intelligent, and that Boobquake was born of a wicked sense of humor and comfort with being female rather than some nebulous self-objectification.

To echo Lisette’s sentiment – I have a brain AND yes, a rack. The fact that I enjoy and can make jokes about the latter just makes me a generally happier, more confident person. It does not detract from my worth, my intelligence, or my ambition. I’m about to start graduate school for engineering in the fall, and my boobs are coming with me – might as well use them for earthquake experiments and MAD SCIENCE!!

I thought it was about brains and boobs [of all sorts, and also with boobs as a stand-in for sexuality/bodies in general].

^______^

Also, ditto to your reply to Feminist Mom in Montreal.

I was watching a documentary on abortion last night (Lake of Fire; 2.5 hours long, but I highly recommend it) and was very uncomfortable because SO many of the “leaders” and activists were men. So, if I had stopped analyzing my discomfort there, it would have seemed like Feminist Mom and I have the same stance. Without further thought and without context, we are BOTH uncomfortable with men leading “the women’s movement.” However, I dug deeper and tried to understand WHY that made me uncomfortable. I realized I had a big problem with the pro-life movement being so led by men, but that I didn’t have an issue with the men in the pro-choice movement.

Why the disparity/difference?

My views on abortion aside, I realized that my problem there was that pro-life men were leading a movement that sought to take AWAY the element of choice and sexual freedom from women and put it in the hands of religion/men/the government. The pro-choice men were seeking to EMPOWER women and help them, and whenever they talked it was in a very respectful way that acknowledged sexism and patriarchy and didn’t imply that THEY knew what was best for women or that they wanted control over women’s wombs. The PC men were seeking to HELP women from a plane of equality, not from a higher plane “where they know what’s best for women.”

The problem was not that men were “leading,” but it was HOW they were doing it and WHY they were doing it. The condescending nature of the pro-life male leaders vs. the desire for equality and choice and AGENCY on behalf of the pro-choice male leaders made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. Even when leading is hierarchical and implies a top/down system, when those leaders bring in other people to ALSO be leaders, and want to EMPOWER people who aren’t “leaders” (by position or choice), it’s a very different ball-game. We should value men who stand up for women, women who stand up for women, people who don’t fit our categories who stand up for women, EVERYONE who stands up for HUMANS and our rights!

Furthermore, just because a male “starts” a movement doesn’t mean he’s the SOLE leader. Focusing on “who started it” as a means to devalue a movement DOESN’T HELP THE MOVEMENT. Also, one person doesn’t just start a movement. Sure, one person can have an idea, but a movement turns into a movement through the actions of MANY; it’s a collective effort.

Finally, if males DID try to “lead” the women’s movement, PERSONALLY, I would love to see Maymay as one of those leaders because of how much he respects choice, women’s agency, and feminism/gender-justice.

We probably will have to agree to disagree on this one. The problem that I find with the paragraph above is that equality between the sexes does not currently exist. Things have certainly improved for women over the past couple of centuries since, but we got to where we are because there were leaders. A leader can be somebody organizing a protest or it could be someone who says something that nobody else has said before. In the case of Femquake, you were leading; you came up with an idea and you asked people to participate in your event. Maybe you don’t feel that you were the leader of Femquake, but when you saw that I credited Feministing in my post, you did point out that you were the one who came up with the event.

Having said that, feminism is hierarchal. I’m sure that many Black feminists would tell you that. We aren’t going to achieve equality between everybody if we don’t acknowledge that there isn’t equality between the sexes or even between different classes of women. Sojourner Truth may have been ahead of her time when she asked, “Ain’t I a woman?” but her words are still relevant today and she was a leader too.

Would you say that men who support women make it look like men can’t lead themselves?

Of course not. It’s a completely different context. Men have been leading themselves for centuries and they’re still the ones who are making most of the laws. Our society is still a society where women constantly have to prove themselves as a whole. Men don’t have to prove that men are good at math and science or that men are capable of leading.

In other words, for people to realize a desire to be independent, regardless of whether they are women or men, “following leaders” is not the way to do it.

Ideally, yes, but that isn’t realistic. There are still things that need to change and they’re not going to change without leaders. Feminists have many different opinions and ideas and they disagree about many, many things. Boobquake vs. Brainquake is a perfect example of this. The idea that the movement will go forward as a whole without leaders and with everyone on an equal footing is a fantasy. Even somebody who is telling everyone to get along is leading. Even if that person’s intention is to get everyone on an equal footing, they’re still telling them what they should do.