What compels me to look at the MWMF boards? It must be some sort of masochistic tendency — and not the fun kind.

Reading that forum makes it crystal clear the bullshit about "intention" and "shared experience" is just that: bullshit. The anti-trans policy is about hatred of transsexuals. That is the sum total of it. The only thing I don't understand is why a transsexual want to be included in a gathering with such venomous hatred at its core. It is akin to complaining that the Westboro Baptist Church won't allow queerfolk to join.

Many people misinterpret the "radical" in "radical feminism" as meaning "3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms." This mistake is understandable, as that is a common usage of the term "radical" in political discourse.

Any radical feminist worth her salt will quickly point out the error and inform you that the definition of "radical" used in the term "radical feminism" is "1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental." A synonym for "radical feminism" would therefore be "fundamentalist feminism". Interesting, eh?

This comment by Mary Sunshine to a rather sensationalized article by Anna Greer effectively illustrates why many women (and men) have given up on calling themselves feminist.

Well, yeah - but 99% of the other web-users are anti-feminist, either actively or passively. 99% of all women now would far rather be called bitches, sluts or hos than feminists. Extreme? Well, that’s what I get from my awareness that 99% of all females are of the “I’m a feminist BUT …” or “I’m not a feminist BUT …” or just plain old “I’m not a feminist” persuasion. And I’m not even counting all the women who say “I’m a FEMINIST !!! ” and then proceed to cheer wildly in favour of rape, porn, sadomasochism, etc.etc.

On one hand she laments that many women don't want to be called feminist and in the next breath denounces women who call themselves feminist but don't have the exact same views as her. While some people may resiliently stick to their guns and insist they are feminist and that no single ideology has a monopoly on the term, others will simply say "Oh, okay. I guess I'm not a feminist". I've known quite a few people who fall into the latter category. People who might otherwise have identified as feminists, now entirely estranged from the movement.

As if being a tween is not hard enough, scientists now call the years between 9 and 12 a time when girls are especially at risk of getting fat. Girls are more likely to become overweight in those preteen years than when they are teenagers, researchers report Monday in The Journal of Pediatrics. The study did not say why that was and did not examine boys to know whether they face a similar risk. ... Parents should pay attention to creeping waistlines and poor dietary habits, particularly in this age group, said Dr. Denise Simons-Mortonof the National Institutes of Health, which funded the research. ... "It should be cool to be physically active, and attractive," [Simons-Mortonof] said. full article

There you have it. Dr. Denise Simons-Mortonof believes it's vitally important that 9-12 year old girls be "attractive". Apparently she thinks that the drive to meet the media's demented beauty standards simply isn't pushed hard enough on these girls. Surely, with a little effort, the rates of anorexia and bulimia can be doubled.

Researchers have discovered a subtle new difference between men and women -- this one occurring in the realm of eating. Kristen Harrison, a professor of speech communication, has found gender differences related to eating and body image. In the new study of observed eating behavior in a social setting, young men and women who perceived their bodies as being less than "ideal" ate differing amounts of food after they were shown images of "ideal-bodied" people of their own gender. Lead researcher Kristen Harrison found that "in the presence of same-gender peers, certain women eat less and certain men eat more following exposure to ideal-body images -- 'certain' in this case referring to women and men who have discrepancies between their actual body and the kind of body they think their peers idealize," Harrison said. "In a nutshell," Harrison said, "we found that, following exposure to ideal-body images, men who are insecure about their bodies eat more in front of other men, while women who are insecure about their bodies eat less in front of other women." ... The 30 images for the female groups were drawn from fashion, lifestyle and fitness magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Vogue, Shape and Elle. The images for the male groups were from magazines such as Men's Health, Men's Fitness and Muscle & Fitness. ... For example, "If a woman is a regular user of ideal-body media such as fitness and fashion magazines, not to mention television programming featuring advertisements for diet foods and products, she may be moved to abstain from eating several times a day -- even when she is hungry -- resulting in significant weight loss over time." Harrison noted that people thinking about the national obesity epidemic might respond to such abstinence with, "Good! This is what should happen." "But the fact that this happens even to skinny women means that such weight loss could be unhealthy," Harrison said. "Similarly, a man who is vulnerable to ideal-male images due to the presence of an actual body vs. ideal body self-discrepancy may be moved to eat even when he is not hungry, just to reassure himself and other men that he is sufficiently masculine." full article

Shock of shocks!!! You show women images of starving waifs as ideal, they eat less. You show men images of musclebound behemoths as ideal, they eat more. Who pays for this crap? Oh yeah, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I'm rethinking the rant I wrote about a month ago rejecting labeling myself "feminist". Perhaps it is not a label I should so hastily reject. This brings to mind the question: "Why is a feminist?".

Yes, I've heard the simplistic answer many times: "a feminist is someone who believes women are people too" or any variation on that theme. But that dissolves quickly when one starts talking issues. The abortion, the rabid warthog of issues, easily breaks the illusion. Many pro-choice feminists declare that pro-life feminism is an oxymoron, and that legal unqualified abortion is the only true path of feminism. This clearly is an affront to pro-life feminists, who will inevitably tell you that they believe unborn women are people too. Whether or not pro-life feminism is valid, this conflict alone shows that a simple definition is not going to suffice in defining what feminism is.

Perhaps asking "what is feminism" is a bit like asking "what is goth" on alt.gothic (is that still regularly asked?). Done over and over again, there is no real definition. It is a political orientation, the same way socialist and populist are. If it simply a political orientation, why should I reject it just because some fanatical organizations such as the MWMF claim it as well? Perhaps it is just a word, perhaps my gesture has no real meaning, but I might just call myself a feminist again.

ganked from recoiling:



I know it may seem odd that this message, a message broadcast until now primarily by radical activists, is being picked up by a beauty corporation. There may be worry about whether or not Dove actually believes the message or sees it as a powerful marketing ploy. However, I do not think Doves intentions here matter as much as their actions. By broadcasting this message, they are lending vast resources to the message that this message would not otherwise have had. They are reaching audiences that are not normally within the reach of radical activists. Corporations have vast resources and they aren't going away anytime soon, it is better to have some of them on our side.

A 50-year-old woman filed a federal lawsuit against Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center yesterday, saying she was forcibly undressed by five male security guards there last year after she refused a nurse's order to take off her clothes. The incident, which hospital officials have defended as necessary to make sure the woman was not hiding drugs or weapons, triggered flashbacks to childhood sexual abuse, according to the woman, Cassandra Sampson. She alleged in the suit that her civil rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because hospital officials made no effort to protect her from psychological damage. Sampson said she went to the hospital for treatment of a severe migraine headache, but was moved to a psychiatric unit when she admitted struggling with self-destructive impulses. She said she pleaded to be allowed to keep at least her pants on before the strip search, but the nurse refused. ``Go ahead and rape me; everybody else has," Sampson said she cried out as the guards unbuckled her pants and removed them. ``They left me there with my underwear showing and my johnny up to my chest . . . I was crying, and [the nurse] said, `That's what you get for not listening to me.' " In a letter to Sampson, hospital officials said they were sorry she had such a terrible experience, but stood by their strict policy of searching psychiatric patients for their own benefit. ... A spokeswoman at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester said the hospital never asks psychiatric patients to undress on arrival. If they suspect the patient may be dangerous, security guards perform a clothed pat-down search. Dr. Maggie Bennington-Davis led a successful effort to stop strip searches of psychiatric patients at Salem Hospital in Oregon in 2003. ``We can't be hauling people in here and be doing more harm to them," she said. ``It's very clear that a strip search retraumatizes them." ... Sampson hadn't intended to go to Beth Israel's emergency room on March 25, 2005, according to the lawsuit. But it was a weekend, and her primary care physician said the ER would be the best place to get help for severe migraine headaches that had persisted for three days. However, as soon as Sampson told a nurse that she took psychiatric medications and that she had been battling impulses to hurt herself that week, the nurse said she would need a psychiatric evaluation. Nurse Heather A. Richter then told Sampson that she would need to completely undress, according to the lawsuit. full article

This is absolutely disgusting. How in the world could Beth Israel's staff think it was in any way appropriate to have 5 male security guards rip off a woman's clothing? This story not only illustrates the dangers of being admitted into psych hospital for victims of sexual assault or abuse, it also illustrates the dangers of telling the wrong person about your feelings and thoughts. Note that Sampson only had thoughts of self harm, not suicide. Her life was NOT at risk. Psych wards are at most about safety nowadays. She did not need the babysitting of a hospital and she definitely did not need to be further traumatized. It was only a panicky nurse that caused her to end up there, this did not need to happen at all.

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when I thought that people were missing the point if they said "'feminists' should call themselves 'equalists' if they truly embrace equality." Now, I think I may have been missing the point. While I agree with most strong feminist concepts, I do not feel part of the feminist "community" nor do I longer want to be part of it any longer. This has been eating at me more and more the past year.

When I was homeless in the Northampton/Amherst area, I had just as much trouble with "feminists" as I did with frat boys, both groups being endemic to the area. I was refused housing on the basis of being trans by both groups. But I still identified as feminist.

Recently, I've become more and more dissatisfied with the drama and the readiness of many feminists to shout "You're not a feminist if you are X"; X being a sex worker, a transsexual, a pro-lifer, or someone who disagrees with them. It's interesting that the same people who would readily deny people the feminist label will also state "a feminist is anyone who believes in equality for women". I've known a lot of people who stopped identifying as feminist for this very reason. The exchange goes as follows: "You're not a feminist." "Okay."

I have also come to dislike the feminist community's knack for grabbing a concept because it sounds or feels good, not because it makes sense. Personal opinions and beliefs are fine and can be based on whatever you want to base them on, but policy and law should be based on reason and logic. Reason and logic are not inherently male concepts nor are they dirty words, as I have heard some "feminists" actually claim.

Reading the blatant hatred and nastiness on MichFest Boards the other day have sealed the deal: While I may agree with most feminist concepts, I no longer want to be part of the "community". Feel free to label me whatever you want based on my views or your views or whatever, but I will from now on be calling myself a There was a time in the not-too-distant past when I thought that people were missing the point if they said "'feminists' should call themselves 'equalists' if they truly embrace equality." Now, I think I may have been missing the point. While I agree with most strong feminist concepts, I do not feel part of the feminist "community" nor do I longer want to be part of it any longer. This has been eating at me more and more the past year.

When I was homeless in the Northampton/Amherst area, I had just as much trouble with "feminists" as I did with frat boys, both groups being endemic to the area. I was refused housing on the basis of being trans by both groups. But I still identified as feminist.

Recently, I've become more and more dissatisfied with the drama and the readiness of many feminists to shout "You're not a feminist if you are X"; X being a sex worker, a transsexual, a pro-lifer, or someone who disagrees with them. It's interesting that the same people who would readily deny people the feminist label will also state "a feminist is anyone who believes in equality for women". I've known a lot of people who stopped identifying as feminist for this very reason. The exchange goes as follows: "You're not a feminist." "Okay."

I have also come to dislike the feminist community's knack for grabbing a concept because it sounds or feels good, not because it makes sense. Personal opinions and beliefs are fine and can be based on whatever you want to base them on, but policy and law should be based on reason and logic. Reason and logic are not inherently male concepts nor are they dirty words, as I have heard some "feminists" actually claim.

Reading the blatant hatred and nastiness on MichFest Boards the other day have sealed the deal: While I may agree with most feminist concepts, I no longer want to be part of the "community". Feel free to label me whatever you want based on my views or your views or whatever, but I will from now on be calling myself a equalist.

After seeing the MWMF boards, it is pretty clear that the Camp Trans press release was inaccurate insofar as stating that there has been any change in the policies of the MWMF.

I share the view others who have expressed: even if the policy did change why would I want to be stuck for a week at a festival with such a tone of fear and hatred. And while the have just as much right as everyone else to single a group out for hatred and scapegoating, I don't really see how that would be in any way enjoyable or fulfilling for me to join in.

ganked from daffidoll:

http://www.camp-trans.org/ Michigan Women’s Music Festival ends policy of discrimination against Trans women After 15 years of controversy, supporters welcome trans women to ‘the land’ HART, MICHIGAN — The Michigan Women’s Music Festival began admitting openly trans (transgender/transsexual) women last week, bringing success to a longstanding struggle by trans activists both inside and outside the festival. “Seeing trans women inside the festival for the first time brought me to tears,” said Sue Ashman, who attends the festival every year. “It’s restored my faith in women’s communities.” Ashman said ”I have friends who have already committed to bringing themselves and others for the first time next year.” Organizers of Camp Trans, the annual protest across the road from the festival, say that every year at least one trans woman at Camp Trans walks to the festival gate with a group of supporters, explains that she is trans, and tries to buy a ticket. In past years, the festival box office has produced a printed copy of the policy and refused. “This time, the response was, ‘cash or credit?’” said Jessica Snodgrass, a Camp Trans organizer and festival attendee who spent the week reaching out to supporters inside the fest. “They said the festival has no policy barring any woman from attending.” The woman purchased her ticket on Wednesday and joined supporters inside the festival. Another trans woman, Camp Trans organizer Emilia Lombardi, joined on Friday to facilitate a scheduled workshop discussion on the recently-retired policy. “This kind of discussion has happened before inside the fest,” said Lombardi. “But for the first time in years, trans women were part of the conversation. Over 50 women shared their thoughts about what the inclusion of trans women means for the Festival and how we can move forward.” “We didn’t expect to change anyone’s minds in the workshop – but in the end we didn’t need to. The support we found was overwhelming.” Both trans women say they were moved by how friendly and supportive other festival attendees were. “We spent all day inside the festival, talking with other women about how Michigan has grown to embrace the diversity of women’s experience,” Lombardi said. “The attitudes of festival goers have definitely shifted since the early 90’s.” With their original mission accomplished, organizers say Camp Trans will continue to be a place for trans people and allies to build community, share ideas, and develop strategies for change. And they will keep working together with festival workers and attendees to make sure trans women who attend the fest next year have support and resources. Camp Trans will partner with a group of supporters inside the fest next year to establish an anti-transphobia area within the festival. Representatives from Camp Trans and A group of festival workers and attendees, organizing under the name "The Yellow Armbands," plan to educate people on trans issues and provide support to trans and differently gendered women. Festival attendees have worn yellow armbands for the past three years as a symbol of pro-trans inclusion solidarity. Both Camp Trans and supporters at the fest say they are excited to be working together to welcome trans women and support a trans-inclusive, women-only space. “This is not about winning,” said Snodgrass. “It’s about making our communities whole again. The policy divided people against each other who could be fighting on the same side. We want to be part of the healing process.” Camp Trans (camp-trans.org) is an effort to end discrimination against trans women within women’s communities. For 14 years, Camp Trans has been a site for trans people and allies to protest the policy, build community, and develop strategies for change. BACKGROUND The festival’s policy against trans women was first enforced in 1991, when festival security ejected Nancy Burkholder from the grounds of the festival. As the largest women-only festival of its kind, and as one of the few remaining women’s events to openly discriminate against trans women, the festival was well known for its policy, drawing criticism from trans activists and festival attendees. Two years ago, a group of attendees deployed a 25-foot banner opposing the policy during the headline act.</a>

I strongly dislike the ingrained genderedness of the Divine prevalent in many modern religions and societies. God is the All and the Everything, to try to apply a human level concept such as gender to God is foolishness. However, the patriarchally attached maleness of God is so ingrained that it is hardly noticeable when God is referenced as male. Even people who see the Divine as beyond gender occasionally slip up and use gendered pronouns in reference to God. The genderedness of God is so pervasive that it is exceedingly difficult to escape the concept.

This is one of the reasons people may reject the Divine, one of many ways patriarchal dogma taints religion. But, I do not believe that one must reject God the All in order to reject the token God of the patriarchy. I will not reject the Divine on the basis of the patriarchy's many corruptions and lies. To do so on that basis would be letting the patriarchy dictate my relationship with the Divine just as much as if I were to follow their dogma, and that is not acceptable to me.

Labels are important things. They are words that tell us something about the person, place, thing, or idea they are applied to. They are a needed part of language. They make it possible to say things in a few words (such as saying "Fred is a Communist") that would otherwise require a lengthy explanation (explaining the details of Fred's political beliefs).

The anti-labelist movement has eroded the usefulness of many words, and it is moving on to taint even more. For example, when I've been in the hospital, I've told the staff I'm a vegetarian. It is very common for them to then bring me fish or chicken, because the last vegetarian ate chicken and fish. I have to explain to them that the person who ate the chicken was not a vegetarian. They were a meat eater. They were an omnivore. They still have control over their labels, if they wanted to be a vegetarian they could simply stop eating meat. Their choice is made by their actions.

Likewise, lesbians spent a long time getting it through the minds of straight men that "lesbian" meant "I'm not going to sleep with you". However, now that a great many bisexuals claim to be "lesbians", insist on being called "lesbians", the term has become meaningless. Again, no one is forcing a label on them by calling them bisexuals. They choose their labels through their actions, and if they are constantly sexually pursuing men, they are not lesbians. Again, the choice of the label lies in the actions.

Of course anything having to do with anti-labelism is going to come back to gender. Gender can be defined medically (a doctor may need to know the status of a person's body regardless of that persons self-identity) or it can be defined socially (as pertains to a person living in or working towards living in a specific gender role.) The former definition is based on physiology and the latter is based on action. Both labels have their uses, the medical label when dealing with medical professionals, the social label (defined by action) when dealing with everyone else.

The anti-labelists are arbitrary in what is acceptable to label someone. I can label Bush an idiot, even though I doubt he self-identifies as an idiot. I can call Trent Lott a racist even though he denies being one. Interestingly enough, some of the most hard-core anti-labelists will regularly violate their own position with statements such as "you cannot be pro-life and call yourself a feminist". The anti-labelist position only serves to muddy the waters for everyone, including anti-labelists themselves.

In short: People choose their labels through action not proclamation.

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

Poll #661241
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Abortion should be legal.

Gun ownership should be considered a basic right.

Psychiatric medication should not be administered without consent.

Marijuana should be legal.

Porn degrades women.

Prostitution should be legal.

The war in Afghanistan was necessary.

The war in Iraq was necessary.

Iran should not be permitted to possess nuclear weapons.

The United States should not be permitted to possess nuclear weapons.

Capital punishment should be abolished.