Jessica Valenti Speaks On Organizing And Feminism
All Things Consider — By Daniel Strauss on February 17, 2010 at 10:22 amJessica Valenti, feminist blogger and writer, spoke to a crowd of excited U of M students last night. Her talking points ranged from her books, her blog to her personal beliefs, but her overall message urged us to be activist feminists.
Valenti specifically championed the power of Internet activism, which I didn’t really realize the dynamics of until she gave a few examples. Initially, I was skeptical of online feminist organizing because it seems like it would distance theory from practice in a way that would make people feel like sitting in front of their computers is activist. I was totally wrong – sitting in front of the computer can be activism!
Her community blog, Feministing.com, does so many great things, operating on basic feminist ideals. A few “trophy posts” she mentioned from the blog included:
- This post that almost immediately after a Feministing reader uploaded a photo, Fox News picked up, and practically overnight, Walmart recalled the inappropriate underwear line.
- Or, this post, where legislation got pulled directly “thanks to efforts of blogging and online activism.”
Not only does the blog allow for feminist campaign organizing, but the comments section is a space where thoughtful feminist dialogue happens.
After her talk, Valenti fielded a few audience questions. One that I found interesting was something along the lines of “Are there certain identities that feminism is mutually exclusive with, like being pro-life or against same-sex marriage?”
She answered decidedly “yes,” prefaced with people are allowed to think whatever they want, but when it gets in the way womyn’s rights, it is not feminist. This caught me off guard. I think her argument is valid, but her exclusion of groups of womyn from feminism is harmful. Sure, it wouldn’t help NOW politically to vote Pro-Lifers onto the executive board, but to me, feminism is about hearing disenfranchised voices and untold narratives. Excluding people because of their ideological views, which are often grounded in other identities, like religion or culture, is, in my eyes, decidedly not feminist.
This was an interesting clash in the talk, as her main goal was for us to forge a feminist community to fight patriarchy and sexist evils of the world, but I think that’s only possible if the full political spectrum of feminists —conservative and liberal— come together.
–Lexie Tourek
| Share and Enjoy: |
|
Tweet |
Subscribe
5 Comments
I don’t disagree with you that the Internet opened up countless new avenues and modes of organization and activism, but I think it should be viewed as as a more quantitative growth than a qualitative revolution.
I apologize for my words in my first comment. They were needlessly harsh and trolling. I wrote them while bitter about the state of the world and the diminished preeminence of my favorite communication instrument. That being said, I hope my words raise awareness into the importance of the telegraph for activists and social movements in the 19th century. The machine really was a cultural upheaval.
Lexie, thanks for coming to the talk last night – I’m glad you enjoyed it. Just to clarify, though, I never said anyone should be “excluded” from feminism. What I said was while I think people can be personally pro-life and feminist, if they are fighting to restrict other women’s rights to obtain abortions, or fighting to restrict the rights of LGBT people to marry – then that’s something I don’t consider feminist. Feminism is about giving rights to people, not taking them away. It’s almost definitional…if you’re advocating limiting women’s rights, you’re advocating anti-feminism. I don’t believe that’s exclusionary, it’s just logical. That said, this is MY belief about what feminism is – I’m sure other people have all sorts of different opinions.
Jessica, thank you so much for coming to campus and reading and commenting! I really enjoyed your talk, and I think the reason why I kept ruminating on your answer to the mentioned question was because I’m very interested in how feminist theory turns into feminist practice.
I think your argument makes sense that there is a difference between what people think and what they do, like perhaps a Pro-Life feminist can only be a true feminist if she/he doesn’t act politically on his/her ideals because the “defining feminist moment” is really whether or not you’re standing for equal rights.
That being said, my original post’s rhetoric of exclusion is probably too strong and misleading because the exclusion occurs on trajectories of different identities like religion or culture, and not feminism.
Yet, I think that it’s fascinating and relevant topic, as there is a great deal of ideological diversity within the feminist movement, and perhaps, developing a new language for describing different types and expressions of feminism would be more beneficial than just saying one’s actions excludes them from a having at least a voice in the activist feminist community.
Observing the potential benefits of internet activism, do you consider the development of the Internet to be an entirely new cultural phenomena, or do you, like historian Tom Standage writes in The Victorian Internet, find that it’s culture-jamming abilities originated with the development of the first telegraph networks?
It is wrong to credit the Internet with the changes you describe. You should research your topic more thoroughly next time and give credit where it is due.
James, thanks for bringing up this point. Though I am not familiar with Standage’s work, I think that in terms of feminist activism and organizing, the internet opens up entirely new modes of communication. In the case of Feministing.com, groups of womyn are brought together that wouldn’t normally have access to each other. I think the internet is unique in this way because it creates a type of activism and community that can be fully achieved from the seat in front of your computer.