Call yourself a feminist? Listen now!
By Laura Woodhouse | 24 March 2009, 09:05
zohra is currently taking part in Radio 4’s Call yourself a feminist?, focusing today on young and online feminism.
Listen here.
————
Missed it? You can listen again tonight at 21.30. The programme covered a lot of ground, including British Muslim women’s reactions to the social pressure for women to strip off, whether it matters if young women call themselves feminists, the media coverage of the Rihanna case and women’s activism in rural India. My favourite quote, though I didn’t catch who said it, referred to the media’s attempt to frame acts such as The Pussycat Dolls as feminists:
That’s not feminism. It’s consumerism appropriating the rhetoric of feminism to sell sexism to young women.
Exactly.
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
zohra said:
That quote was Jessica Valenti. I think we were all basically like 'yeah! what she said!' when she said that.
I posted about the first two episodes in the series here if people want more background.
This episode should be up for a week, so no immediate pressure to listen to it today.
Posted on 24 March 2009 at 10:47 AM
Dipo said:
Interesting listening on Radio 4 this morning.
Kudos to you Zohra, I wish I can have further discussions with you on some of your stand which were really remarkable.
Posted on 24 March 2009 at 11:33 AM
Saranga said:
It was a great programme. The only thing that I would criticise was the introduction of the show, where 1) they played a Pussycat Dolls song and inferred that all young feminists listen to them (whatever) as well as inferring that liking that group is a bad thing (why?).
They also said something like that young feminists are celebrity obsessed (i'm not) and that the constant photography and adulation of Victoria Beckham and Beyonce is somehow unfeminist (why and how?). I know it was just the introduction of the show but it raised my hackles.
Thankfully all contributers to the programme are bright intelligent women and the discussion was of interest and made sense!
Posted on 24 March 2009 at 12:59 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
That annoyed me too, Saranga. The interviewer seemed intent on bringing up these false media representations of feminism and young women - this supposed 'raunch feminism' that doesn't exist, our supposed obsession with celebrity. It's all rubbish, and I agree the contributors all did really well to keep the discussion relevant, interesting and on-track.
Posted on March 24, 2009 1:42 PM
NorthernJess said:
Thank you for putting this quote up, I have been trying to sum up this exact point to my friends for ages, may have to steal it!
Posted on 24 March 2009 at 4:21 PM
keith reddin said:
what little i have heard on the subject seems mostly to ignore men. isnt this rather like discussing time whilst ignoring space?. your contrasts, comparisons, are too often - it seems - only with other women, so that from a bloke's viewpoint you're constantly missing half the story??
Posted on 24 March 2009 at 4:54 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
Hi Keith - you're going to have to be a bit more specific there I think! Feminism generally compares women's situation with men's in order that the inequality between the sexes can be eradicated. It also addresses expressions of masculinity, male violence, men's role as parents etc, as all of this impacts on women. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at...
Posted on March 24, 2009 5:05 PM
piefaceanny said:
Why are most posts here 'what about the men?'
I love men bah...even I get tired of this. So much for feminist space lol.
Posted on 25 March 2009 at 8:52 AM
Laura Woodhouse said:
piefaceanny - I hardly think 'most posts' are 'what about the men?'! Keith's comment was a one-off, it wasn't offensive, so I thought I'd reply to it - if it has been an infuriating 'what about the men' comment in relation to violence against women or something, I would of course have left it unpublished.
Posted on March 25, 2009 8:57 AM
Saranga said:
Can I also comment on the clip played from the million women rise event. There was a lady from (i think) an african country talking about how rape is used by soldiers. She said soldiers had forced her SON to have sex with her, then shot him, then shot her father.
So, who says that men can't be forced to have sex? Who says they can't be raped by women?
Posted on 25 March 2009 at 12:04 PM
piefaceanny said:
Saranga in that case, the rape would have been by men. A woman lying there was raping him, um his own mother?
Laura W,
Well from what I've seen of this site it is all 'what about the men'.. Especially rape cases etc, and you actually leave the comments on. (There's a reason this site isn't as popular as other feminist sites a bit more strict with posting policy :))
Posted on 25 March 2009 at 3:09 PM
Blend said:
piefaceanny io right, so much of feminist space.............
Posted on 25 March 2009 at 5:57 PM
Charlotte Cooper said:
Saranga, I'm deflated by your comment.
Posted on 25 March 2009 at 9:51 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
piefaceanny - well I can only conclude that you haven't seen much of the site! As for the comments on my rape myths post, I made it clear that I had published a number of women-blaming comments as a one-off in order that we could challenge these dangerous arguments, and commenters were happy with that decision, though of course it is your prerogative not to be.
(This post: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/02/rape_myths_stil )
Saranga - I'm not quite sure what you're getting it, would you like to expand? I don't see how women's potential to rape men has anything to do with the story told by the woman at million women rise.
Posted on March 26, 2009 9:26 AM
Rachel said:
The fact is that 'what about the men' is a very common point on view in wider society, and it needs to be addressed by the feminist community. I know lots of people who might read this website and think exactly what some of those comments say - by posting them, they can be replied to and challenged. In that way I think this site contributes combating those sorts of opinions, which has to be a good thing.
Posted on 26 March 2009 at 12:42 PM
Fran said:
The woman Saranga mentioned was from the Congo, and the point is that the son who was forced to have sex with his mother was raped, just as she was. The fact that men can be raped (by women, too -- although that's not what happened in the Congolese woman's story) shouldn't be forgotten, but I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with this thread.
Posted on 26 March 2009 at 1:00 PM
Saranga said:
Hi all,
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well.
My thoughts were that the son was forced to have sex with his mother. Presumably he didn't want to this, hence he was forced.
I did not mean to infer that the man was raped by this mother. I was making an (albeit poorly explained connection) between this particular man being forced to have sex with his mother and other men being raped women, thinking in terms of the biological functions, e.g. men getting erections isn't always about their own personal desire, it is a physical response that cannot always be helped.
This subject has been in my thoughts recently which is how I made the connection. It was absolutely not an indictment or accusation against the mother. I can see how it could be read that way - my fault for leaving a badly explained comment.
My apologies for any misunderstanding or offence caused.
I hope my explanation makes sense. If not please leave a response and I will do my best to answer it.
Posted on 26 March 2009 at 11:15 PM