Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: I'm STILL a feminist...what's it to you?
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3
is it just identifying that keeps him from being a feminist, syb? after all, there are women who identify with being a woman who aren't feminists.... it seems to me that your dad understands it first hand and has done the 'homework' to be a feminist. even more he has internalized and been active and gone out and put his beliefs to the test. a lot of women haven't even done that.
Hm...I don't know. I also think men can be feminists. I know several who do identify as feminists, and I accept them as such.

I guess it's because I view feminism less as a struggle for women's identity (whatever that means), but more of a political, socioeconomic struggle for equality. That's where I see feminism/feminists being unlike the LGBT movement/being gay positive, even though I know certain aspects of both movements go hand in hand.
Well, identifying (and being identified) as a woman is a big part of it. A man can't "give up" the privilege of being male in our society willingly. The whole society really is constructed to present that privilege to him no matter what he does (there are then hierarchies of "manliness" that are falsely constructed, where privilege is not allotted equally to all men--that's where class, colour/race, and sexual preference/expression come in). Bottom line is that men are still favoured, and as aware as they can be, the way the world works still considers them the most valued. You can see it in our economics, you can see it in our language and what words are meant to convey, you can see it in all our unspoken yet known and assumed cultural conventions.

So, yes, men can and do support and understand and know on particular levels, but they'll never be in the same position politically or socially as women.

And lots of men talk a good line when it comes to women who are friends--but when the misogyny comes between them and their self-interest, as Wombat said so well, yeah, they will hold on to their privilege with all their might, more often than not. I agree lots of men will do housework, it's true; but in a relationship the overwhelming majority of the unpaid shitwork gets done by women, and men "help" (telling terminology right there). Gonna bring up another brilliant and oft referenced Feminist Economist again: Marilyn Waring, and her book If Women Counted. It's 10+ years old now, but nothing has changed since the time when she was writing. Also amazing: Hazel Henderson, whose webpage includes a lot of great articles illustrating just how the important and massive the unpaid work of women actually is:

mmm, well the same can be said of white women. they can never give up their privilege, and while it may not be the same as sexism, they can acknowledge and work against it, and make others aware of it.

now if the question is will there still be elements within them that still hold sexist views, i would agree, in the same way that most whites still have racist views, even if the know and work to rid themselves of it. but i think a guy can

be a feminist and work against what he's been taught, just as a woman can work against being taught to be submissive. feminism, to me, is a point of view that you share; that their should be equality, and we should all work towards it, and eliminate sexism. i think anti-racism and and anti-sexism (feminism) have those same aims. i don't think one needs to be black or, latino etc, or identify as such to see and want to rid oneself of racism, the same with sexism. i don't think you need to identify as a woman. but maybe that's just me.
I just feel like any allies we can get, we should take! I'd much perfer to be in the camp that includes a diverse range of feminists, rather than one that is very small and very alike. I agree with aviatrix that there are many women who identify as women but not as feminists, so really identity is not a prerequisite for me. Like I said before, I was told by some women that *I* can't identify with feminism because my preceived priveledge of being thin suggests that I'm part of the problem. I basically shrug that kinda statement off. I mean, I understand their point, but I don't think shutting me out helps anything. I mean really, please someone explain to me how telling others they can't be feminist really helps the cause?

Anyone read christina hoff sommers?
I haven't so I'm not sure if I agree with her, but I'm interested in the idea that their are "gender feminists" who seem to insist that womens gains are illusionary, eventhough we have come so far. (like aren't more women in college now than men?)
I put Christina Hoff Summers in the same camp as Camille Paglia. There's been a huge backlash against feminism in the last 20 odd years or so, and a big market and promotional push behind women who want to be critical of feminism in order to get us all to "accept" that feminism is a limiting doctrine, and that we're as equal as we're gonna get and now we're just harming ourselves. I hate to say it, but that's where these ladies land for me. I can't even think of them as feminists because they've never written and published any feminist work. To me, they are this era's Phyllis Schlaffly. Definitely women, but never feminists; also quite happy to profit from the access feminism has actually given them, whether that access has been through academia or the media. I can't consider these people "allies", when they really aren't interested in being part of the diversity of feminism so much as they are interested in denouncing all of it as faulty, or even just being apologists for the persistent status quo which is still pretty misogynist. At least that's what I got from their writing (I've only been able to stomach one book from each). But that's just my opinion.

Yes, white women can't give up privilege which is granted to them by racism--but bottom line is all women, across the board, experience the systemic hatred of women. They just don't experience that hatred in equal forms. They do, however, experience it in comparable measure. The fact is, as all feminists of every political stripe have pointed out consciously or unconsciously, that a "hierarchy of the hated" exists.

Anywho, one thing we forget is that feminism has also been very thorough about describing and detailing exactly how misogyny hurts men, as well as women.

So I guess that means that I think that yes, certainly, men can be feminists as well. Let me correct myself here.
(Maybe it's just the "commitment" to the philosophy I'm having trouble with...but we all know you can question a lot of women's "commitment" to it as well, when you're faced with examples like the ones above)

Anyway, yes, we do need all the allies we can get--male, female, rich, poor, any race/culture, no matter. People who are striving to open their eyes to the injustices in the world are still striving to make things better for everyone if they are striving to be aware of the effects and realities of misogyny.
Oh, ditto on the Camille Paglia hate. So many guys see her as refreshing. She likes sex! She likes rock and roll and transvestites!!

Big flappin' deal. So do a lot of feminists. I totally saw her as kissing up to the oppressor to get notoriety.

Then she talks about beauty and how we can't help but be fascist about preferring it, and she herself looks like Captain Kangaroo wearing long red fingernails.

QUOTE(chachaheels @ Jan 27 2007, 10:16 AM) *

To me, they are this era's Phyllis Schlaffly. Definitely women, but never feminists; also quite happy to profit from the access feminism has actually given them, whether that access has been through academia or the media. I can't consider these people "allies", when they really aren't interested in being part of the diversity of feminism so much as they are interested in denouncing all of it as faulty, or even just being apologists for the persistent status quo which is still pretty misogynist.

Couldn't have said it better myself. smile.gif
great conversation, everyone! greenbean, i know that you were just kidding about your cousin, but i'm curious. does a woman have to make MORE money than whoever to be a feminist? i can't remember who asked about there being more women at university now, but i think that could be true. so if there are more women out there with higher degrees, why is it that dollar for dollar, for the same position, women still get paid less than men?

and to go back to the genetic question for a minute: what if a woman is transgendered, either pre or post surgery? can that woman be a feminist or not? is it based on genetics? birth certificate?
Can a man be a feminist?

My gut says no. My man is well versed in feminism on a personal and political level, but there are limits to his feminist critique - ie. when feminism intersects with some privileged space he takes for granted. Plus, he has that annoying tendency to seek praise for basic stuff - ie. always making sure I have an orgasm too. What a hero! I mean, I really appreciate it, but he's always expected to have one without any hassle. Why shouldn't I?

I still think I need to do more thinking on the issue. I've started researching a book on contemporary attitudes to feminism in Australia and my co-writer and I began the project with a huge web survey asking questions such as what is feminism, who is a feminist, is feminism needed, what should feminism discard/ keep etc. And the overwhelming majority of some 1000 plus surveys so far say feminism has to be for men too. What form this takes (ie. encouraging men to identify as feminists?) is something we need to muse on...or do we?
deannareturns wrote:
And the overwhelming majority of some 1000 plus surveys so far say feminism has to be for men too. What form this takes (ie. encouraging men to identify as feminists?) is something we need to muse on...or do we?

Feminism pretty much always has included men in its diverse analyses of (insert discipline here). There has never been a feminist work which hasn't detailed exactly how misogyny has created/dictated/hurt men as well as women (and each analysis yields a different perspective one that issue). I don't think any serious works have actually dictated a "way" for men to "be" in a less biased world (just as they don't dictate a way for women to "be", either--it's all about being aware of and getting around so many of the blocks created by systemic discrimination anyway).

The idea that feminism "leaves men out" is just another one of those misrepresentations, like the basic lie that feminism focuses primarily on hating men and not wearing high heels or nail polish.

Ideally, it would be great if a lot of men realised just how much they've been made to lose because of misogyny. If they could somehow understand clearly exactly what the cost of their privilege has amounted to, on personal levels, as many women do when they "get" it.

As for genetics/gender, I always wonder how it is that men who change sexes find the world after they live in it as women. A lot of men stay in existing relationships with the same women they lived with when they were still, physically, men; and a great number of transsexuals I've ever heard interviewed, or read and read about, are quite open about describing a first hand familiarity with the whole power dynamic that exists in male/female relationships, once they participate in them as females and not males. So many opt to pursue relationships with other women, as opposed to men, once they make the change. I don't really know what to make of that exactly without jumping to conclusions which are going to be presumptuous, but I do think it might speak to a power dynamic a lot of "former" men cannot live with, once they're subjected to it.
If this means they suddenly become "aware" and want to create a life which isn't based on that dynamic, and if that means they've opted to consider feminism on a personal level, then...they're certainly adopting some feminist ideas to their own lives.

tesao wrote:
i can't remember who asked about there being more women at university now, but i think that could be true. so if there are more women out there with higher degrees, why is it that dollar for dollar, for the same position, women still get paid less than men?

This is because misogyny really is about what's valued and what isn't: woman are not valued economically in the same way as men. Just as "secretary" used to be a highly paid, highly skilled and regarded job for men at the turn of the 19th century (and then became a negligible, poorly paid job for those who were considered to be "without skills" when it became a "woman's job"--and has now been altogether replaced by Microsoft Word, Excel, and Access), all work and institutions continue to be devalued as soon as women gain access to them, and their associations with (male) privilege and status begin to erode.

This change in valued perception isn't the fault of women who strive to fulfill themselves by accessing those positions or experiences, it's the fault of a society which continues to devalue women. Remember that a huge amount of the necessary work that has to be done to keep that society going is completely devalued and gets done unpaid, overwhelmingly by women. None of the "other" work--the kind people get paid to do--can take place without this unpaid work, and as a lot of feminist economists have pointed out, once you put a dollar value on that unpaid work it often exceeds the paid work in monetary value (so when you expand that reality to include things like Gross National Product, all of which depends on the free labour worth as much or more--whole economies are resting on female good will and/or exasperation). As long as the truly crucial unpaid "women's" work continues to be devalued, women will be devalued no matter what contribution they make. Hence, the 30 to 50% persistent difference in the amount of pay women will get for doing the same job as men (which has been a differential that's held steady for a long, long time--much longer than people think).
Certainly theorising and making sense of men's roles, and thus discover how and why to change them, is central to implementing any kind of feminism: we all live in the world together. I do think though that because men cannot identify with being a woman, because they occupy a privileged space, they can still participate in a project of feminism but cannot be feminists themselves.

Deanna, I can see men identifying as participants in feminist actions (without being 'feminists' b/c to be a feminist means identification as a woman) as a workable thing, I think. I know it looks like a mighty fine line, maybe too fine?? I think precision is important in any kind of politicised discussion though.

There are intersections between gender, race and class of course, so that a black working class man, for instance, doesn't access the same privilege as a white middle class man... but men still occupy a separate space.

On the question of a transgendered woman: if you identify as a woman then IMO, yes, you can call yourself a feminist. Especialy as through transgendering womanhood is a state you chose and had to struggle to achieve.

Thanks Cha for the input on the author!

Tes, heh, yeah I guess I subconsciencely equate feminist with successful women. When ever I'm feeling like I'm not a good feminist its because I'm not in a powerful position in the workforce.

And yes, I asked about women in college. I think its because more minority women are going to college, but not minority men.

I agree there is still much more that needs to be done in regards to equal pay. I feel like teachers get the worst end of it. Its argueably the most important job in a society, yet because its still considered a women's job, they are terribly underpaid.
here's a question for y'all:

can you be "anti-choice" and be a feminist?

i would usually say no, if you think that abortion should be illegal, you can't really call yourself a feminist. or, you can, but i wouldn't call you one smile.gif

BUT, i have this awesome aunt who is such an amazing woman, yet she is catholic and believes that abortion is murder. and she is a feminist. in every other way, really. but i just have a really hard time with this one-whatcha think?
maddy, I think you can be. I'm Catholic and I'm a feminist (albeit not practicing and I don't believe in their stance on abortion or on many things for that matter); politics and religion can be exclusive. Besides, it's still a personal choice; feminists can choose not to have an abortion themselves, or not agree with it as an action but they will defend to the death a woman's right to choose.

Again, it's the discussion of what feminism means to you; I wouldn't say that you have to agree with abortion to be a feminist and I think there are several great feminists out there who don't agree with it.
I agree with Bunny, you can be personally against abortion and still be feminist,..but I would question the feminism of a woman who believes in anti-choice laws.

We had this discussion on that issue awhile back starting here:
yeah, i think the difference is when a woman says "i wouldn't have an abortion cause it's murder" and "NO woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion because it's murder."

this aunt i always looked up to-she didn't take her husband's last name, and would send back mail addressed to "mrs. his last name." in so many ways i think of her as a feminist, until i heard her views on abortion! i was so shocked.
Well, she may be expressing her views on abortion as a choice she would make for herself--meaning she wouldn't do it in her own case because she would see it as murder.

But laws about choice in abortion are another matter, because they address a different issue all together, which is whether a woman has the power to determine her own fertility, and maintain full determination over her own body. I think that many feminists would agree that the core point is that a woman must have the right to determine her own fertility, and determine the use of her own body. If women don't have that, then who does?
(and that's where the church would like to step in and say, WE do!) We would be the legal equivalent of slaves to whatever or whomever gets to determine those things for us.

Some people feel politics and religion can be exclusive, to a certain extent, on a personal level (I've tried, but I just can't see it that way at all); but as institutions, Religion and Politics are inseparable and the religious is really quite politically powerful, especially when the personal becomes involved. I think you have to have some understanding of the way these institutions have shaped our world and created a reason for the existence of Feminism in order to put the whole question of Abortion in context, especially when you consider just what kind of impact that influence has had on women's lives.

So I think it would be difficult to be a feminist if you just couldn't see your way to being "pro-choice". But I could be wrong: there may be some as yet unarticulated or unexplored means of creating a way for women to be self-determined in terms of fertility which does not call for terminating a pregnancy (even though that happens naturally so much more frequently than via surgery that it makes me think God's the biggest abortionist out there).
I think politics and religion can be exclusive in thought but not necessarily action. Many religions have hindered, damaged and dictated women's lives and the Catholic church is a fine example when it comes to determining a woman's fertility; they remove choice from the woman (if she follows her religion) and punish her if she does not (Magdalene laundries, Mary Magdalene herself). Catholicism is, in many ways, outdated especially in relation to feminism.
I'm with you, Bunny.

I'm hoping women can overcome the Catholic church. Personally, and universally. But that's neither here nor there.
yeah, now i'm thinking-i don't know if my aunt actually identifies as a feminist-i guess i just assumed she did because of the way she's lived her life, guess i'll have to ask her. it's a tough conversation for me, cause i'm just SO passionate about the right to decide if we want to reproduce or not, it's hard to listen-but last time we talked it was pretty good.
It sounds like she very well could be, Maddy. I'm sure the idea of abortion is just something she could feel is not right for her--and, if she's truly devout, she won't judge another for choosing to make that decision. It just can't be a cut-and-dry question by nature. It's truly possible she's struggled with that on a personal level and she may not want to "condemn" others or even wish she could remove the choice from other women, even if she does feel it's abhorrent. Or maybe she thinks the opposite and has a real struggle reconciling things--who knows. I imagine there are millions of women who are torn by these kinds of questions, on a really profound level, just as a matter of philosophy. I don't envy those women at all if they are forced to make this kind of deliberation AND faced with the decision about keeping a child they know they don't want and terminating the pregnancy.

Lots of women who are pro-choice think abortion is a terrible thing too--so many women wish it could be avoided, or that there were some other way. But that doesn't mean many women don't see the necessity of having access to the procedure, no matter what. To me, it's a line on which so many women are divided (which pisses me off) but I am certainly very happy to have a feminist perspective which "frames" the whole argument in a way which also considers women's rights in the whole debate.
just out of curiosity, how do you all feel about feminists for life? i understand what is being said about women being able to be both feminist and pro-life, but feminists for life has always struck me as remarkably unfeminist.
Eeek is my first reaction to that!

I'm all for a feminist critique of how hard abortion can be (or alternatively how guilt and suffering isn't intrinsic to the experience), but I draw the line at pro-life feminism.

Then again (**just typing quicker than I think**) there are lots of feminists I know who engage in anti/ non feminist activities/ perspectives etc, including myself. But it would be impossible not to. So what is negotiable and what isn't?
I think the Feminists for Life are right in line with Camille P., "RealWomen", and all those other backlash-y type institutions put together just to undermine women and keep them from exercising their rights as human beings.
Like I said, there are a whole slew of these kinds of people popping up--they serve a purpose, they just don't serve any purpose women could benefit from.

Also, I don't fucking know how the hell someone like Patricia Heaton can go around babbling this nonsense when she's really using her celebrity to promote laws that tell women what to do no matter what they need. That's an abuse.
Women who end up without access to abortions they want end up having to raise babies they often cannot afford--perhaps we should all start a campaign to get these women to demand some big money from these celebrities so that the financial hardship they've imposed can be somewhat alleviated. After all, Heaton's got tons of money for her "acting". If she's so gung ho on forcing women to have kids they don't want, she ought to be financing as many as possible.
their "mission" is to make a better society for mothers and children? well yes, that's feminist. most pro-choice feminists would agree that better healthcare and education for women and children would lead to less abortions. but, we also want women to be able to make our own choices, especially since we don't live in that society yet.

no, they're not feminists. and i don't like them using the principles of feminism for their anti-feminist mission.

i'm not so much against a celebrity using her/his fame to bring attention to a cause s/he's into. but yes, i'm more sickened by all these anti-choicers telling women to keep unwanted babies and not donating their time or money to their care, and most likely not even supporting welfare, education or foster care programs. idiots!

gee, well i'm never watching 'everybody loves raymond' again.... not that i really did.
i don't think i was clear, my aunt who i thought is a feminist is against legal abortions. it's not just that she thinks it's wrong for herself, she truly believes that it's murder and we need to outlaw it.....

that's why i was asking, cause to me that makes you NOT a feminist, or at the least, a very confused one. its one thing to choose it or not choose it for yourself, it's another thing entirely to say that NO one shoudl be able to make that choice.
That's true, Maddy, and thanks for clarifying that.

Well, I'd say your aunt is very demanding in terms of making sure her rights are safeguarded, but she holds an opinion and stance that isn't of much benefit to many women on the abortion issue. Maybe she just doesn't understand other stances, or the issue being framed in any other way.

People are full of contradictions--we are all contradiction riddled, and conflict riddled, and just plain complicated.
QUOTE(chachaheels @ Jan 31 2007, 12:39 PM) *

I think the Feminists for Life are right in line with Camille P., "RealWomen", and all those other backlash-y type institutions put together just to undermine women and keep them from exercising their rights as human beings.

I agree 100%, I always think "wolves in sheeps clothing".
I thought this spoken word poem by Kendra Urdang is perfect for this thread.
I'm traumatized for life now! Really is that shit necessary? Are those pictures real? I'm signing off now. Ignore button is kind of pointless after the fact.

don't mind him, pugsy. believe me, there have been better x-tian trolls than him here, and eventually they get bored once they don't get the emails saying his posts saved a life. they get bored, leave and life goes on.

and the ignore button isn't pointless. this bore posts the same pix in several threads. atleast you won't have to see them elsewhere, or put up with his bullshit anymore.
Pugs, a lot of the pics the crazies post aren't actually from abortions, they're of stillborn deaths. It's the only way they can get so many pics of well-developed fetuses. No, it really isn't necessary for the crazies to post ridiculous pictures like that, but that's what they do. It just makes me wanna give my neighborhood abortion doctor a big hug for fighting the good fight regardless of the bullshit.

Remember when we had the Fund for Fundies deal going on and made a donation to our favorite pro-choice organization in the fundie's name for every stupid post they made? That was fabulous. I think I'll do that again.

Euphrates, you just made a good 10 or so donations possible. Thanks! (I'm sure Planned Parenthood of South Dakota will thank you too!) smile.gif
oooooh! me too! i just got paid! thanks euphy! you're a real swell!
add another donation, to NARAL or PLANNED PARENTHOOD and for every post. or as an alternative i'd like to propose 2 minutes of volunteering for every time that euphy posts. what do you think ladies? we're almost at an hour....
too bad euphy is a nom de plume. if we knew his name we could donate the money and the time in his name.... hey, we could even get a plaque for him... sigh... just think of what could have been.... all the same, i am sure they'll be glad he posted. again and again.

why are trolls so slow on the uptake? hmmmmm....

Actually, I think someone once did figure out his name and place of employment.

He also once followed a bunch of other busties to livejournal and posted these sorts of pic/links there - if that's not internet harassment/stalking, I don't know what is.
His name is Steve. Maybe I'll just donate in the name of Steve Euphrates.
faerie, you slay me. esp. the "goofy euphy." you are a riot!

one thing i love about this city is the queer community is so visable (atleast to me).

i was just watching a show about queer resistance and they were talking about femme identities and femme resistance and being a femme ally. now if that sounds kind of wierd, let me explain this a bit. in dyke culture (sorry if that word offends, but when i was in that culture, that's the word that fit, and felt the most comfortable to me), there is usually a butch and a femme. the butch has the most 'masculine' energy, while the femme, is more, obviously, feminine. there are different levels of each depending on how you identify. for me most of the time i identified as a 'soft butch' i loved trucker hats, cowboy boots n hats, rode a skateboard, and held open the door for my dates. i loved doing masculine things like fixing plumbing, changing tires etc, but soft because i loved my femmininty too. i am crazy about make up, and will talk your ear off about eyebrow maintenance. a hard butch would be the cliche of a diesel dyke. it's all masculine energy with them, although my ex was close to a hard butch, she loved getting pedicures, something that her butch friends teased her about. now i identify as a femme, but not a high femme. a high femme is the most femme of women. she wouldn't be caught dead without lipstick or out of heels if she left her house. she is the polar opposite of a stone or diesel dyke. she's all feminine energy.

the reason i bring this up is because the topic lead to a conversation about femme pride. now i know, or have met most of the women who were panelists on this particular cable show, and i have heard them talk about femme pride other times and in private conversations. they are strong intellegent women and i don't think they would hesitate to say they are feminists. but they were talking about selfhatred or hatred of femme identity-- which i think comes into feminist circles some times. there is sometimes a kind of shame that feminists have for loving their femininty.

there is one thing this woman (who is a great spoken word poet) said that i wondered how it would play here. she said that she finds her femme strength is different but no less valuable that a butches. she said what if the tire on her car went flat. yeah, she could change the tire, but she could also talk a man (or a butch) into doing it for her. then she asked, which is smarter? both are useful skills. but that she took more pride in her ability to use that femme power. the reason, she said was that, that femme power is something that has been unrecognized for a very long time, and in a queer relationship it can be a form of resistance. like if there was a fight that was about to go off between a diesel dyke and some guy. the dyke's femme girlfriend can "sweet talk" the guy into going back to whatever he was doing before the blow up, and that is a strength. a power. it is not something to be disgarded and is everybit as feminist as her dyke gf cold cocking the guy and laying him out. it's just different. like the changing of the tire.

I don't agree with their position, but I applaud the young women on the 5 teams for standing up for themselves and their fellow players:

budding busties on the pitch

um...bumpy bump
Going back to the feminist for life deal, patricia heaton from everybody loves raymond is a member of that organization. I remember she got all in a shitfit when the Teri Shiavo fiasco was going on.

RealWomen makes me insane with anger.
Not sure where to put this,...but it seems like an easy and free way to do something feminist-y today!

donate tampons
Is there a Vagina Monologues in here?
Anyway, my roommates and other ladyfriends put on a show for Tulane this past weekend. It kicked ass. Have to say I'm impressed. I've seen some of it on HBO before...but live and knowing the persons on stage was a bit different.
doxy, there's been a fair amount of discussion about The Vagina Monologues recently (there was the hoohah about some city changing it to The Hoohah Monologues because of complaints). We've discussed it in What Do You Call Your Va-jay-jay in LTAS and This Just In... in ATWT. A male's perspective of the play is always interesting.
I found this piece of journalism a bit inspiring...
Open Call for Definitions of Feminism!

How do you define feminism? Do you follow the dictionary entry to a T or does the word have a deeper meaning to you? As different generations emerge, dissect, and redefine this word and movement, the true meaning of the word continues to become more and more complex.

To me, feminism transcends this traditional method of explanation. Generations, organizations, historians, artists, and individuals don't always have the same versions of what this word means. Is it a movement? A mindset? A way of life? Do you love it? Live by it? Hate it?

With all of the events and exhibitions culminating in 2007, a year that some have dubbed the Year of the Woman Artist, it is a great time to reflect on the meaning of feminism.

As a project for my fellowship at A.I.R. Gallery, I am gathering as many different definitions of feminism that I can. Anyone can submit regardless of location, gender, age, background, or lifestyle. So, spread the word to everyone near and far!

There is only one rule, and that is you have to submit your form online (see the link below) in this format:

Last Name, First Name. Birth Year. City of Residence. Definition (50 Words or less).

The entries will be compiled into a 'dictionary' ordered by last name that will be downloadable from the A.I.R. Gallery Website.

The hope is to arrive at several variations and personal definitions that can not only be usable as a resource or source of inspiration for all of us right away, but also as a time capsule for future supporters of feminism. Anyone can participate!


§ Please submit your definition here:

§ Definitions are due by Saturday, April 14 th.

§ Submit your email address so you will be notified when the compiled dictionary is ready to be viewed!

Looking forward to seeing your definition!

Oh, and spread the word!


Brynna Tucker

Artist, Feminist, and 2006-2007 A.I.R. Fellowship Recipient.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.