Why Anita Sarkeesian is the best: How to be a feminist

[Dr_Liszt]

[Blade Azaezel]

She's hot, therefore I value her as an object.

[Dr_Liszt]

She's hot, therefore I value her as an object.

Stop being a trollolol!!!

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

So just to get this straight...her idea of being a feminist is limiting women's behavior? (yes, I'm trolling).

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

So after actually watching the video, my problem s that she never defines these choices nor does she seem to allow for the possibility of women who make different individual choices to make the same group choice. Is she really saying that certain choices make it impossible to be feminist? If not, then she needs to define the choices one can make to advance the movement while still remaining confident in their individual choice.

[Dr_Liszt]

She said that certain choices screw the movement as a whole and end up in a way, oppressing other women. One example that comes to mind is that horrible article about that black woman that was being parade in human zoos, making it some kind of "using the patriarchy for her benefit." When there really is no such thing.

So maybe it's not impossible to be a feminist if you make choices like that, but that it skews the vision of what feminism is trying to achieve. And in a way it oppresses minorities for the benefit of white privileged women.

Individualism is a word neoliberalism likes to use so much and ignores the effects of systemic oppression. Recognizing oppression and community (Something neoliberals equate with socialism) is something that they are extremely against and they somehow equalize it as a lose of freedom. When the whole capitalist system IS built and depends in oppression itself. That's why I thought this message was important.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

So after actually watching the video, my problem s that she never defines these choices nor does she seem to allow for the possibility of women who make different individual choices to make the same group choice. Is she really saying that certain choices make it impossible to be feminist? If not, then she needs to define the choices one can make to advance the movement while still remaining confident in their individual choice.

She seems a pretty coherent speaker but I watched that and walked away with the same question.. She describes people who employ patriarchy for their own benefit and, y'know, fair enuff but - I'm having a hard time to think of clear examples of this that are reasonably self illustrative.
What I think she may be saying is - given there are less options for women generally, a women who is forced into making a choice and making that choice work for her isn't a stunning example of feminism, which is fair enuff, but how is it anti-feminist?

And how does this apply in a modern world context, or is it meant to be specific to the individual and their motives?

So, does this make a commentary on say - the porn industry which as a whole, is essentially patriarchal? .. or strippers etc?

And if she is calling out these jobs, does she mean that anyone who participates in them is letting feminism down regardless of whether its something they really want to pursue..

For point of clarity - I'm not being argumentative rather, I kinda get her point I just don't know how to apply it.

[Blade Azaezel]

So far this thread is just men telling women how to be feminist

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

So far this thread is just men telling women how to be feminist

Point taken, though keep in mind that I'm part of the male patriarchy, so I don't think a request from the ignorant for a better understanding is out of line. Of course I didn't frame it simply as a request but as a criticism, so there's that issue.

She said that certain choices screw the movement as a whole and end up in a way, oppressing other women. One example that comes to mind is that horrible article about that black woman that was being parade in human zoos, making it some kind of "using the patriarchy for her benefit." When there really is no such thing.

So maybe it's not impossible to be a feminist if you make choices like that, but that it skews the vision of what feminism is trying to achieve. And in a way it oppresses minorities for the benefit of white privileged women.

Individualism is a word neoliberalism likes to use so much and ignores the effects of systemic oppression. Recognizing oppression and community (Something neoliberals equate with socialism) is something that they are extremely against and they somehow equalize it as a lose of freedom. When the whole capitalist system IS built and depends in oppression itself. That's why I thought this message was important.

I remember the discussion on that article. But I'm thinking more in terms of today's society. Is a housewife oppressing women or can she be just as feminist? What of Lily James' Cinderella, who was criticized for her body image by other women? If she contributed to oppression, who is to blame for said oppression? Was James limited in her choice by the vision of others? Or did she choose to accept the costume? If no to either, why does her choices not equal contributing to oppression?

[Dr_Liszt]

Nooo Kevin. No!

You people are the worst.

OK... what she is saying, in other words, just because Obama knew how to play the white man's game really well, doesn't mean that black people are liberated but the entire opposite, he just like the white powerful men around him, is profiting from a system that oppresses the black population.

It has nothing to do with women staying at home, or how small some women's waists are, it's something greater than ourselves, something we might never be able to change. Individual feminism tend to overshadow groups of women that don't play the whole white men power game well, it caters to the neoliberal system which is oppressive, and therefore is not what the movement should be about, it should be about dismantling power and achieving equity.

That's the message.

And now you guys will be like "soo Obama being a president is racist?" "oooh, so hillary clinton is anti-feminist??! so if a woman goes into poltics, is anti-feminist??!!!!"
STOP MISSING THE POINT GODDAMIT!

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I guess I'm a little confused because many would argue the homemaker & James (or at least her costume/designers) are playing right into the oppressive patriarchy. Are those that would argue such things guilty of individual feminism because their focus is on such issues that it takes said focus away from the truly oppressed?

I guess I get it....in that I don't get it.

[Dr_Liszt]

Ok. Let me try this again. Stop thinking of Lily James' waist, I know little waists are attractive, but please, stop it! Stop! Focus.

A lot of feminists are about reaching equality, right? They want the same rights and opportunities as men. So what this essentially means is that what they want are the same opportunities men have, in a capitalist system ruled by white men. So in the end what you will have is a false sense of liberation, with limited choices and a scenario that only a privileged class of women will get access to. Is this feminism? Maybe, if you put your focus on individualism, yes, some choices and some freedoms might be feminist, some women are empowered, so yes. But if you spread your lens wider and look at the collective, you'll see that focusing on reaching equality within the system is just maintaining the same oppressive system, where the women who are disabled, gay or color are clearly at disadvantage and in no way achieves actual liberation.

Sadly pointing this out always, ALWAYS, always gets deviated as an attack to personal freedoms. I see this every time neoliberalism gets criticized, somehow pointing out the exploitation within the system and doing something about it automatically means to many people, a loss of free will. It doesn't. And is so stupid because in neoliberalism there already is a loss of freedoms and personal choice.

So the message is that being a feminist should not be about asking for the same privileges in a white male supremacist world, is about challenging power. Or at least should be about challenging the system to reach actual equality and actual liberation rather than an integration to it.

[Cassius Clay]

I want her to put her Anita in my Sarkeesian

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Ok - So I listed to this a few more times and am more comfortable with my understanding of what she is saying.

Somehow I missed that she was saying "Obscure" and was working under the premise that she meant that these things conflicted with feminism.

I'm pretty sure she's saying that if a women makes it in a mans this could be seen as a victory for feminism meaning that that part of the battle is done when all it means is that she's just made the system work for her, the power balances within the system remain unchanged but pointing to small victories may obscure the larger reality being that the system is still unbalanced.

Which is all perfectly understandable..

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Ok. Let me try this again. Stop thinking of Lily James' waist, I know little waists are attractive, but please, stop it! Stop! Focus.

A lot of feminists are about reaching equality, right? They want the same rights and opportunities as men. So what this essentially means is that what they want are the same opportunities men have, in a capitalist system ruled by white men. So in the end what you will have is a false sense of liberation, with limited choices and a scenario that only a privileged class of women will get access to. Is this feminism? Maybe, if you put your focus on individualism, yes, some choices and some freedoms might be feminist, some women are empowered, so yes. But if you spread your lens wider and look at the collective, you'll see that focusing on reaching equality within the system is just maintaining the same oppressive system, where the women who are disabled, gay or color are clearly at disadvantage and in no way achieves actual liberation.

Sadly pointing this out always, ALWAYS, always gets deviated as an attack to personal freedoms. I see this every time neoliberalism gets criticized, somehow pointing out the exploitation within the system and doing something about it automatically means to many people, a loss of free will. It doesn't. And is so stupid because in neoliberalism there already is a loss of freedoms and personal choice.

So the message is that being a feminist should not be about asking for the same privileges in a white male supremacist world, is about challenging power. Or at least should be about challenging the system to reach actual equality and actual liberation rather than an integration to it.

Hey don't blame me for James' waist. You feminists started it by bringing attention to it in the first place .

Ok - So I listed to this a few more times and am more comfortable with my understanding of what she is saying.

Somehow I missed that she was saying "Obscure" and was working under the premise that she meant that these things conflicted with feminism.

I'm pretty sure she's saying that if a women makes it in a mans this could be seen as a victory for feminism meaning that that part of the battle is done when all it means is that she's just made the system work for her, the power balances within the system remain unchanged but pointing to small victories may obscure the larger reality being that the system is still unbalanced.

Which is all perfectly understandable..

Finally. It all makes sense .

Not to worry Liszt. You did make sense, but I couldn't resist making a reference to aels' article.

[phe_de]

For those who prefer to read: Here's a transcript.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2015/0 ... more-29482

I'm not sure I agree with her.