Boobquake was hilarious. Above all else, the joke turned media frenzy turned factional feminist debate taught me that the Internet is like a giant game of telephone. No matter what someone says, someone else will misconstrue it as something totally different.
And y’know what? That’s not so terrible. Here’s why.
The Internet is like a giant game of telephone
While misunderstandings and hurt feelings aren’t fun, they’re not the only thing that can result from a game of telephone. Similarly, while misunderstandings and hurt feelings sadly abound in response to Iranian Cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi’s claim that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes (not to mention Pat Robertson’s equally bigoted claim that gay people cause hurricanes)1, a lot of real good did come from Boobquake. As Lissy observed:
watching my facebook statuses I noticed something… boobquake worked for a lot of people who I know don’t spend much time thinking about feminism at all. My very capable and hardworking sister Ginger, takes no shit from anyone but would never be described as a feminist activist[…]. But boobquake? She was onto that, spewing on her facebook status about sexist pigs in a way that made me a proud older sister… she listened to me ranting, all that time I thought she wasn’t listening as a teenager she was!
Of course, baring cleavage in the name of women’s liberation is itself controversial. In short order, Boobquake received criticism from feminists who felt “saddened” by this response. A counter-event, categorized as a “Protest” on Facebook named Brainquake, soon sprung into being. What’s most interesting of all, Brainquake creators Negar Mottahedeh and Golbarg Bashi say that they’ve been in touch with Boobquake instigator Jennifer McCreight, and McCreight says she’s been in touch with the Brainquake creators, and that there’s little (if any) animosity between the three of them.
Responding to factional feminism
Nevertheless, while hanging out on Twitter on Sunday, I saw a seemingly endless stream of negativity about Boobquake from Brainquake supporters. It was being described as “anti-feminist,” and while I personally don’t find boobquake that appealing (although it is funny), I found the negativity spewed Jennifer’s way even less appealing. That’s when I decided I’d break the binary and came up with Femquake. As I wrote when I introduced the idea:
Both breasts and brains are good for humanity and deserve our respect. Don’t coerce women into being proud of one over the other, or feeling ashamed of either! YES WE CAN all get along.
[…]
The core ideal is not a woman’s body or her mind, but her humanity. Decrying women who are proud of their bodies is as oppressive as forcing the ones who aren’t to cover them up. Hailing intellectualism over physical value is as insensitively demonizing as nonconsensual sexualization.
It’s time for women, men, and everyone else to empower one another to live the lives we want to live, free of coercion and abuse, whether modestly dressed or not.
It’s time for a FEMQUAKE!
Jumping on the “b*quake” bandwagon had its benefits. Within hours, the Femquake Facebook page had hundreds of fans—and an equal number of detractors. It seems that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. And, statistically speaking, that’s precisely the problem with Boobquake, too, as Phil Plait from Discover Magazine wrote:
there are very few huge quakes, and a lot of little ones. We expect to rack up maybe one quake more powerful than magnitude 8 in a year, but on average we get one in the magnitude 6 – 6.9 range every couple of days somewhere in the world, and one in the 5 – 5.9 range something like three to five times every day. That’s every few hours!
And there’s the weakness in the Boobquake plan. […W]ithout defining the time period, the earthquake size, and the region in advance, this can actually reinforce the cleric’s claims! Given the huge tracts of land involved, no matter when women of the world unveil their decolletage, there is bound to be a magnitude 5 quake within an hour or so of the event, and a mag 6 quake within a day.
Jennifer McCreight, Negar Mottahedeh and Golbarg Bashi, and myself have all received criticism for supporting gender justice in our own ways, and the criticism is as diverse as ever. That’s no surprise, and again, I think it’s actually a beautiful thing. Having this diversity empowers people to choose the form of activism that’s right for them.
And if you don’t see what you like, you can self-empower yourself to go make it.
Feminism is about gender equality, and equality requires self-empowerment
That message of self-empowerment is, in my view, what my response to the factionalism over the “*quake” events is all about: Don’t let ideological feminists shame you into covering yourself up, or pressure you into exposing yourself,
I wrote. Your body is YOURS. It is yours to show off however you like, whether physically, intellectually, or otherwise.
On that note, let me share with you some of the criticism I’ve received over Femquake. I think the negativity can be illustrative and can offer a wonderful opportunity to practice empowering positivity. If all this hullaballoo over boobquake has shown me one thing, it’s that we all need to practice assuming good faith and responding to offense nonviolenty.
@Custard_Socks says “fuck off with your titpics”
I followed conversation about #Femquake on Twitter. Here’s what @Custard_Socks had to say:
Femquake? Brains and boobs? My sister’s a flat chested idiot but she’s done damn well in a male dominated job, so fuck off with your titpics
@Custard_Socks #Femquake is feminist solidarity—the idea is that #sexuality is too often divisive. Why be so negative when we could empower?
In answering honestly (I believe), @Custard_Socks said:
@maymaym From the participants on the Femquake Facebook page, feminism means you can brag about your high IQ & big tits. Solidarity, my arse
@maymaym Boasting is empowerment for the selfish.
At this point, it occurred to me that there probably wasn’t anything I could say to convince this person of Femquake’s intent. I simply don’t know how else to describe Femquake than the way I did on the Femquake Facebook event page:
On Femquake Day, honor a feminist who inspires compassion among different groups of people and who celebrates the value inherent in the diversity of human sexuality. In other words, HONOR FEMINISTS WHO ROCK YOUR WORLD!
Or, just smile at a stranger. It’s good for them, for you, and for our planet. :)
If honoring feminists who rock my world amounts to “brag[gin]” about their high IQ and big tits, well, fuck, I’m in! If smiling at strangers is “boasting” and “selfish,” fuck it, slap my ass and call me narcissistic! Smiling is healthy, and so is being proud of who you are.
Anyway, taking my own advice, my conversation with @Custard_Socks continued with my reply, which I intended just as genuinely as I believe they intended their earlier reply to me:
@Custard_Socks :) I hope you have a fantastic day today and brighten someone’s day. It’d be wonderful if you were able to do that.
But a moment of insight hit me when @Custard_Socks answered back with, @maymaym Are you saying I’m more than likely not capable of that?
“Oh,” I thought to myself, “is that the concern?” Does @Custard_Socks feel so disempowered to bring joy to others that they are so ready to jump to the false belief that others find them incapable of it? Obviously, only @Custard_Socks can answer that, but regardless of this person’s situation, it occurred to me that countless people probably do feel exactly that.
Maybe some of what the knee-jerk negativity in feminist debates needs is someone to say, “Hey, I support you, and I think you can bring this world joy!” (You can read the rest of my conversation with @Custard_Socks here, here, and here.)
Melliferax says, “someone else who is ostensibly on the same side has to go off whining about it? Grumble.”
Femquake got blogged about right alongside Boobquake and Brainquake, just as I’d hoped it would. Of course, not everyone was so enthused. In a comment on one such blog post, Melliferax said:
Femquake… had a very quick look and it just seems like the usual call for equality? How’s that different from, y’know, feminism or good ole humanism? Why is it that every time someone comes up with an idea, like arresting the pope or showing some cleavage, someone else who is ostensibly on the same side has to go off whining about it? Grumble.
Femquake was born out of my unhappiness with the unhappiness many Brainquakers felt towards Boobquakers. So yeah, I guess you could say I was “whining about it.” But is that so terrible?
I mean, if a “call for equality” can come from unhappiness, is saying that the people who advocate for that equality are “whining” really going to help matters? I don’t think so, but I’m not going to belittle you for thinking differently.
If calls for equality stem from whining, then maybe what we need are more people whining! What I think we don’t need, however, is negativity directed at calls for equality. Since you get to choose how you respond, why choose something negative when you could choose something positively empowering?
Millerax says that Femquake “just seems like the usual call for equality,” but as the billions of female-assigned, intersex, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, kinky, and queer people will attest, calls for equality is anything but “usual” in far too many parts of the world. I think the absence of more calls to equality in places like Iran is seriously whacked, yo. Don’t you?
Anonymous says, “awesome. a man is leading the femquake charge. […I]t means a little less to me now.”
As I’ve been saying for years, one of the beautiful things about the Internet is that it enables us to let our ideas, words, and actions speak for themselves, without judgements based on age, race, gender, or other characteristics. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a insert-your-feared-identity-here. However, identity really matters to some people.
In a comment on Feminist Mom in Montreal’s Femquake blog post, someone who prefers to remain anonymous said:
awesome. a man is leading the femquake charge. That’s all great and lovely, but I guess I was hoping that it was a woman. If that makes me sexist, well, I guess maybe I am.
Not gonna lie, it means a little less to me now.
The point is still there and the point is a good one, but meh…some dude on the internet leading the charge on us uniting our boobs and our brains is just, IDK, ironic.
Thanks for the help, though.
First, Anonymous, you’re very welcome! :D I’m glad to help bring about a world where gender justice is a reality!
That being said, I have to wonder why my being a man means that Femquake loses some measure of respect in your eyes. As a man, I know that it’s very difficult for men—including myself, at times—to stand up for the rights of women. Y’see, I could choose not to. I could go about my life content in the knowledge that because no one questions me when I check “M” when replying to Facebook’s “Gender” question,2 I have privileges that someone who checks “F” may never have.
And y’know what? That’s a pretty sweet deal for me and the other “M”‘s, and a pretty crappy one for all the “F”‘s.
That’s why it’s absolutely baffling to me that when men stand up for gender equality, it somehow means less than when women do it. The reality is that no matter who is standing up for gender equality, it means the same thing: that we are all working towards the same goal of equality and opportunity for all souls on this planet, regardless of what body those souls inhabit.
So, while Anonymous may find it “ironic” that a man like me came up with Femquake, I find it equally ironic that someone who wants to support gender equality would devalue an effort to support gender justice due to the gender of that effort’s founder.
Strengthen love, not shame
There are, of course, plenty of other negative and positive responses to Femquake, and I’m thrilled to see that the Femquake page is still getting fans. After all, communication is inherently imperfect because otherwise we wouldn’t need it. And so I think, in the end, all this diversity is beautiful—it’s a reflection of the diversity inherent in all of you!
Ultimately, regardless of whether someone supports me or tries to put me down, I’m going to work on just being happy. I want to spread joy in the world. :) I know it can be hard, and I struggle to smile sometimes but, with your help, I’m learning how.
Thank you for all the criticism, the support, the encouragement, the denigration, and responses. Thank you for keeping the conversation going, and for talking to one another, and to me! Thank you for turning a sexist comment by an Iranian religious leader and a boob joke by a young feminist into an opportunity to promote peace and happiness and understanding and unity and self-empowerment and beauty and intelligence!
Now go and enjoy life, because working towards bringing pleasure and joy and equality and opportunity to everyone—everyone—is what feminism is all about!
- I think Pat is wrong about the whole hurricane thing. I think Teh Gehys actually cause volcanos. Don’t you remember the recent Icelandic volcano that halted air travel in Europe? I mean, those Frenchies are all sexual deviants! I say we need a #Gaycano experiment! Go, Internet, go! [↩]
- Facebook really ought to change that label to “Sex,” not “Gender,” since those two words are not actually interchangeable. See also: Gender and Technology. [↩]
by Lisette
27 Apr 2010 at 17:24
“If a woman writes about herself, she’s a narcissist. If a man does the same, he’s describing the human condition.†Emily Gould
Much of the controversy over boobquake/brainquake/femquake reminds me of this quotation. When women do anything to indicate that we’re proud of something about ourselves, we’re immodest, or lack humility, or narcissistic. We’re still supposed to be demure and forgiving. The same is rarely expected of men.
Damnit, I’m smart and have a great rack. I’m quite proud of both.
by maymay
27 Apr 2010 at 17:31
Good for you, Lisette! And from my perspective as a man, good for me for highlighting both your great rack and your smarts. It’s insulting that when I admire a great rack I’m in danger of being instantly reduced to a sexist pig, as though my appreciation for the beauty of a woman’s body is vacuous of her intellect. That’s the danger of gender inequality, and that’s fundamentally why men must be encouraged to support feminism. (And why feminists would do well not to denigrate the men who support feminism, I’d add.)
For what it’s worth, I think you might find Clay Shirky’s “A Rant About Women,” as well as Danah Boyd’s response, “whose voice do you hear? gender issues and success,” interesting pieces worth reading.
by Lisette
27 Apr 2010 at 18:35
Thanks for the links; I’m familiar with the concept they deal with, though hadn’t read either specifically. I think it’s simplistic to argue that women just aren’t assertive enough in academic or business settings for many of the reasons outlined in Danah Boyd’s piece. But on the surface, my experience is that men are more willing to promote themselves than women are.
In terms of men checking me out, I’m generally not particularly bothered, but if someone screams “nice tits” out of a car window (and yes, this has happened to me – I was 12 at the time), it’s quite clearly objectification. This is an entirely different situation from having dinner with a friend and noticing his eyes drifting down towards my chest.
by Feminist Mom in Montreal
27 Apr 2010 at 20:28
I think that Femquake was a good idea, but I can see where the anonymous commenter on my blog was coming from. Men have been the ones who have been the leaders throughout history, and while there are more women in government now, it is still made up of mostly men. Part of being a feminist (for me and I think for anonymous, too) is believing that women can be leaders as well, and when a man comes up with an initiative like Femquake, it doesn’t really strengthen that idea. When men step up as leaders for the women’s movement, it looks like we can’t even lead ourselves. I don’t think that the comment came from a belief that men don’t have good ideas and valid opinions, but from a desire to be independent.
Pingback
by SaraEileen.com › Dear Grand Adventure: To Begin
27 Apr 2010 at 21:09
[…] as legitimate, complimentary and empowering personal characteristics. It has sparked some interesting discussion, both positive and negative, and I considered, briefly, engaging with it in some way. Then I […]
by Severe
27 Apr 2010 at 21:14
I’m glad I follow you on twitter maymay, otherwise I’d be completely oblivious to the boob/brain/fem-quake phenomenon, and I’d especially be saddened that I didn’t get to read some of the many illuminating and thought-provoking comments/posts/etc. on the subject(s) once I found out those conversations were happening.
I love it when discussions like this come up – they help me figure out a better way to be a feminist who is also really into great racks and great brains. I have to admit, I think I’m slightly more into great brains when it comes to the female gender, but it’s a pretty tough call.
by maymay
27 Apr 2010 at 22:06
Oh, I agree, Feminist Mom, leadership is not dependent on one’s gender, and feminist ideals certainly support that truth. As do I. Like you, I don’t believe that the anonymous commenter believed Femquake to lack worth.
That said, I have to respectfully disagree with you when you say that supporting ideas that men come up with makes it look like women can’t lead themselves. To me, that feels like a grave indictment of women, one I’d be uncomfortable making. Would you say that men who support women make it look like men can’t lead themselves? Sexism is sexism, and there is nothing I find worth honoring about sexism regardless of its source or its target.
Furthermore, the idea that somehow someone has to “lead” equality strikes me as faulty. Equality is by definition non-hierarchical. Leadership, by contrast, is necessarily hierarchical. To say that I am somehow “leading the charge” is misrepresentative of the ideal of self-empowerment that I tried to put forth in coining “femquake.”
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. In my humble opinion.
by Feminist Mom in Montreal
28 Apr 2010 at 06:52
Furthermore, the idea that somehow someone has to “lead†equality strikes me as faulty. Equality is by definition non-hierarchical. Leadership, by contrast, is necessarily hierarchical. To say that I am somehow “leading the charge†is misrepresentative of the ideal of self-empowerment that I tried to put forth in coining “femquake.â€
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.
by Aida Manduley
28 Apr 2010 at 07:18
“If honoring feminists who rock my world amounts to “brag[gin]†about their high IQ and big tits, well, fuck, I’m in! If smiling at strangers is “boasting†and “selfish,†fuck it, slap my ass and call me narcissistic! Smiling is healthy, and so is being proud of who you are.”
^______^
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.
by Aida Manduley
28 Apr 2010 at 07:19
Also, since when did boobquake have to be about big boobs? Did I miss something?
I thought it was about brains and boobs [of all sorts, and also with boobs as a stand-in for sexuality/bodies in general].
by Dae
28 Apr 2010 at 11:53
This is an interesting dialog to me, because the very way we go about promoting gender equality illustrates the ingrained sexism. I agree with you, Maymay, and I’m actually inclined to take it a step further – a thoughtful presentation of respect for a group that you are not a member of (whether the group is a gender as is currently under discussion, a race, an age group, a sexual orientation, or any other measure of how shards of humanity distinguish themselves from one another) is sometimes more meaningful to me than a member of a given group shouting for its own “cause.” That’s simply because it represents that understanding CAN be reached, and bridges built, between those groups. That people who don’t necessarily have a strong incentive to care about the situation of another demographic have seen reasons to do so anyway. (That said, of course, the minority/underrepresented/less privileged/blind albino wombat group has to demand equality in its own right for anything to work.)
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!!
by maymay
28 Apr 2010 at 12:54
I’m prepared to agree to disagree with you, Feminist Mom, although–in this case–I don’t think that’s what I’d prefer to do. Perhaps we simply still misunderstand one another. :)
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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?
by Melliferax
28 Apr 2010 at 13:00
Hey!
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.
by maymay
28 Apr 2010 at 13:08
Hi Melliferax. :) Thanks for clarifying your comment.
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.
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.
by Lisette
28 Apr 2010 at 16:27
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?
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.
Pingback
by Boobquake Didn’t Destroy Feminism « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff – Site News
05 May 2010 at 21:19
[…] Spinoffs Femquake and Brainquake are unnecessary, but are the typical result of the Internet where other creative people find their own way to express their ideas of how the world should run. […]
Pingback
by Men as feminist leaders? | OklandPress
05 Jun 2011 at 07:12
[…] Maymay wrote about the anonymous comment in his blog, it sparked a debate about leadership, men as feminists, and whether or not a hierarchy exists […]