The "neo-pharaonism" of Egypt's ultra-nationalists, beautifully illustrated birds at Amarna, matching headless torsos and torso-less heads of ancient Greek & Roman statues, and more…
Kara's criticism that feminist thought (be it conservative or liberal) can't exclude a person's physical body from their lived experience is well-taken. I train Brazilian jiu-jitsu in an academy where the people on the mat come from diverse ethnic backgrounds and represent a spectrum of social, political, and spiritual thought. Whether those of us training identify as female, male, trans, or non-binary, we are all there because we acknowledge a shared reality: some bodies are stronger than others. No matter how we identify on the gender spectrum, many of us came to jiu-jitsu for self-defense, and because it allows one to gain the advantage over a person who is bigger, stronger, and more athletic.
The idea that some bodies are weaker than others is not an invention of the patriarchy--the idea that weaker bodies are less valuable or ideal than stronger bodies *is* a patriarchal invention. Feminist thought should not ignore the lived human experience in favor of engaging with a patriarchal strawman (i.e. physical strength as a prized ideal), which then helps to alienate people who would be feminist allies but who can't engage with a mode of thinking that so disingenuously ignores the reality of their lived experiences.
We should ask: Who benefits when "bodily feminism" (as Kara puts it) is ignored by feminists and feminist thinkers?
Hmm! A lot to think about with this post! I’ve been feeling kind of “yucky” with the term feminism for a minute, and I think this post put my feeling into words. Not just the more obvious issues with TERF feminism, but also the type of feminism that is simply teaching femme presenting folks how to convincingly put on a man’s mask.
I had Substack read this article aloud on my drive home, so it gave me a lot to think about while stuck in rush hour! Thanks! 😂
are you seriously attempting to push the rhetoric that “hard left” is a thing? this is delving into radical feminism, you know, the ideology that harasses and denies the existence and rights of trans and nonbinary women. is that what you’re saying: that trans women aren’t women because their bodies don’t conform to your bodily focused feminism????
No, I don’t espouse TERF feminism; I said as much in my take on it. I support trans women and know that sexual bodily expression is a fluid thing with many steps between the binary. But I also think that feminism needs to take the actual material body into its discussions. Rather than espousing a denial of bodily differences or an I-can-do-anything-girl-boss-feminism, I would like a feminism that openly assesses how bodies can can be subjected to patriarchal power—including bodies that can give birth, that have hormonal responses expected to caretake, that are weaker relatively and thus subject to sexual violence, as well as bodies that express the need to be another gender and/orsexuality.
Trans women and trans men are part of that bodily equation. I hope this clarifies.
As for hard-left feminism, it did not help me with post-partum depression or alienation. I don’t think it helped me to transcend how my body was hormonally primed for use by other humans—babies and men. It taught me to ignore my body, to fit into patriarchal roles instead. I think that hard-left feminism has left discussion of the body behind, because they want to transcend the body completely.
In the same way archaeology is asking for a New Materialism that gives agency to things and places, as opposed to some human dominated world, I would like a bodily feminism that soberly and thoughtfully addresses the materiality of the human, in ALL its forms.
oh, thanks for the clarification, this makes a lot more sense. sorry for coming off confrontational. you mean those new wave, mother goddess types, is that what i understand? i recall a quote by either atwood or leguin about how feminism that focuses on the secrets of womanhood and finding your inner goddess does little to further the causes, and instead draws inward.
Kara's criticism that feminist thought (be it conservative or liberal) can't exclude a person's physical body from their lived experience is well-taken. I train Brazilian jiu-jitsu in an academy where the people on the mat come from diverse ethnic backgrounds and represent a spectrum of social, political, and spiritual thought. Whether those of us training identify as female, male, trans, or non-binary, we are all there because we acknowledge a shared reality: some bodies are stronger than others. No matter how we identify on the gender spectrum, many of us came to jiu-jitsu for self-defense, and because it allows one to gain the advantage over a person who is bigger, stronger, and more athletic.
The idea that some bodies are weaker than others is not an invention of the patriarchy--the idea that weaker bodies are less valuable or ideal than stronger bodies *is* a patriarchal invention. Feminist thought should not ignore the lived human experience in favor of engaging with a patriarchal strawman (i.e. physical strength as a prized ideal), which then helps to alienate people who would be feminist allies but who can't engage with a mode of thinking that so disingenuously ignores the reality of their lived experiences.
We should ask: Who benefits when "bodily feminism" (as Kara puts it) is ignored by feminists and feminist thinkers?
Hmm! A lot to think about with this post! I’ve been feeling kind of “yucky” with the term feminism for a minute, and I think this post put my feeling into words. Not just the more obvious issues with TERF feminism, but also the type of feminism that is simply teaching femme presenting folks how to convincingly put on a man’s mask.
I had Substack read this article aloud on my drive home, so it gave me a lot to think about while stuck in rush hour! Thanks! 😂
are you seriously attempting to push the rhetoric that “hard left” is a thing? this is delving into radical feminism, you know, the ideology that harasses and denies the existence and rights of trans and nonbinary women. is that what you’re saying: that trans women aren’t women because their bodies don’t conform to your bodily focused feminism????
No, I don’t espouse TERF feminism; I said as much in my take on it. I support trans women and know that sexual bodily expression is a fluid thing with many steps between the binary. But I also think that feminism needs to take the actual material body into its discussions. Rather than espousing a denial of bodily differences or an I-can-do-anything-girl-boss-feminism, I would like a feminism that openly assesses how bodies can can be subjected to patriarchal power—including bodies that can give birth, that have hormonal responses expected to caretake, that are weaker relatively and thus subject to sexual violence, as well as bodies that express the need to be another gender and/orsexuality.
Trans women and trans men are part of that bodily equation. I hope this clarifies.
As for hard-left feminism, it did not help me with post-partum depression or alienation. I don’t think it helped me to transcend how my body was hormonally primed for use by other humans—babies and men. It taught me to ignore my body, to fit into patriarchal roles instead. I think that hard-left feminism has left discussion of the body behind, because they want to transcend the body completely.
In the same way archaeology is asking for a New Materialism that gives agency to things and places, as opposed to some human dominated world, I would like a bodily feminism that soberly and thoughtfully addresses the materiality of the human, in ALL its forms.
oh, thanks for the clarification, this makes a lot more sense. sorry for coming off confrontational. you mean those new wave, mother goddess types, is that what i understand? i recall a quote by either atwood or leguin about how feminism that focuses on the secrets of womanhood and finding your inner goddess does little to further the causes, and instead draws inward.
The above comment posted twice, so I removed the duplicate comment.