Taking sides

The other day, I found myself thinking about how it was easy for me to "side" against Jonathan Chait because I wasn't at all invested in him as a writer, not even as much as his arch-nemesis debater Ta-Nehisi Coates, who not long ago tweeted that when Chait was good, he was really good. I mean, I genuinely disagreed with his article, so the siding wasn't primarily driven by my lack of investment. But my lack of investment made it even easier. (Counterexample: you'll recall that when Ani DiFranco stepped in it, I was disappointed but also mildly defensive--not of her error but of her overall legacy). Just like it's easier for me to dismiss Jenny McCarthy for her antivaxxerism but I was disappointed with Alicia Silverstone for the same (not because I admire her as an actress, but because she's so effective at vegan outreach). Long before the current measles outbreak, I had to break up with her website and her work (but I still appreciate what she does for animals).


So just as I was thinking about my lack of investment--and here's another great take on Chait--my Twitter feed starts exploding against Eve Ensler. Whose work I do admire. And I was at work (skimming Twitter for work-related happenings) so I couldn't look into it until I got home. I heard the detractors and agreed with some but not all of their arguements. The voyeurism of the fistula piece was definitively disturbing, and I can appreciate the frustrations of WOC about the exclusionary aspects of Ensler's activism. While I don't disagree with the critiques of TVM, I don't blame Ensler for them. She wrote a play based on what she knew, and that play became iconic. And the fact that it doesn't cover women without vaginas doesn't make it irrelevant; the existence of transwomen without vaginas doesn't erase the experiences of women, cis and trans, with. But back to the White Savior Industrial Complex accusation: reading Lauren Chief Elk's letter, I heard her frustration, but I thought she was piling it on with the "you cried, but you're not the victim" thing. Maybe Ensler cried because she saw her mistakes and tried to atone for them? Maybe she offered Chief Elk a role in her movement to better include her voice, not to coopt her? I'm not suggesting that Chief Elk owes Ensler forgiveness, but I doubt Ensler had nefarious motives (yes, I know motives don't count for much when you live in a reality shaped by their impact; see below).

All this to say, I'm disappointed in a woman I once admired for her art and her activism, but I can't so easily dismiss her or her work or her activism. But is that mostly, if not only partly, because my identity shapes my reaction? To what extent can well-meaning allies who don't live the others' realities appreciate them? And don't get me started on the Ensler critiques I just don't have time for--i.e., as long she works within the capitalist system, she perpetuates the patriarchy. My identity shapes my response to that, too: I was born in a socialist country, one where my parents lived most of their lives. It wasn't a feminist utopia. But that's not my point here.

On the way back from Vietnam, Jay and I both watched "Good Morning, Vietnam" for the first time. I noted that it wasn't bad, apart from the misogyny. He noted that it wasn't bad, apart from the homophobia. We'd both noticed both, but each managed to move on from the one that didn't hit at us personally to the point where we'd forgotten about it by the end of the movie.

So it's perfectly understandable that we don't know how painful or offensive something is unless we live it. It follows that it's our job to listen when someone who does live it, tells us. Listening doesn't imply instant agreement, but it does mean listening in good faith, with an open mind.

***

I do maintain--and yes, who the f* am I--that feminists need to quit eating our own. No, that was not a swipe at feminists of color. I mean that feminists in general are undermining our movement by infighting (which does emphatically mean that the "mainstream" movement, if there is one, needs to be more inclusive of WOC). But I read this take-down of Liz Lemon and thought, yeah, some valid points, but would we be so focused on her microbehaviors if she were, for example, a guy? Or am I just getting defensive because I may be guilty of “Liz Lemonism.” After all, I'm a "white, coastal-city dwelling... heterosexual cisgendered woman, a woman with a comfortable white-collar job..." Then again, I do Blogspot, not Tumblr, and I post about sex workers’ rights and don't complain about “raunch culture.” Then again on the other side, I do “body image...” and can’t have a conversation with you about Michelle Tea, Sugar High Glitter City, Kathy Acker, or Carolee Schneeman (but I'm not Concerned About Porn; I'm breakfast not brunch, and neither flirty not slutty. I despise cupcakes even though I know to make them myself, and I have no feelings about Vajazzling. That piece, together with the bell hooks conversation on Beyonce, were linked in this meditation on the word "slut."

That list doesn't quite read like a Buzzfeed quiz as to whether you're basic, but it does, to me, read like an invitation to catfight. All I can say, as a white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual cisgendered woman whose ideal feminism is one that serves women (people) of color, L(G)BT people, etc.--most certainly those without comfortable office jobs--how does stereotyping, help? No, my feelings aren't hurt; yes, I find artificial divisions unhelpful.