Feminism And the Fat Liberation Feed

Two corrections: It's the Fat Liberation feed, and Coffee Catholic has been taken off it. But I'm not going to take down this post because I think I had a good point anyway.

OK, so the feminists vs. non-feminists thing has been going on for a while within the fatosphere, and it's been raised again, so I'm going to seize this opportunity to talk about it.

Dancing With My Mirror posted about a new Fat Liberation feed blog, Coffee Catholic. I basically agree with everything she says - I'm very disturbed that there are openly anti-feminist blogs in FA feeds. Personally, I can accept that some FA supporters don't like the label "feminist" and/or might not agree with all of the goals and values of "the feminist movement". I call myself a feminist without being part of any feminist group, because to me, feminist simply means "equal rights for both genders". Some might disagree on that definition.

I can understand that non-feminists feel excluded or marginalized in the feed. So by all means, speak out and talk about your gender views. But does this mean we have to start a war between the feminists and the non-feminists?

Big Liberty, who runs the Fat Liberation feed, defends Coffee Catholic's right to express her views:

While I agree that it might not be the most appropriate blog on the FL feed at times, you have to realize that there are people out there who are just as offended by some of the posts of blogs made on the Fatosphere, and who scroll past those posts as quickly as you scroll past CoffeeCatholic’s. While CC is extreme, it’s bothersome to those who are mostly used to having their own extreme viewpoints heard and encouraged. What not a lot of people realize is that some of the viewpoints of the blogs on the Fatosphere feed *are* extreme, and *not* mainstream.

Don't we realize it? Because I think we do. None of us lives exclusively online, let alone exclusively inside the Fatosphere feed. We've met the people - who make up the majority - who don't think like us. FA is extreme and far from mainstream. So is feminism. That's kind of the point. We're an alternative to mainstream media. And the more different bloggers there are, the more alternatives we can provide.

I can understand that some people cringe at the feminist talk at, say, Shapely Prose or the F Word, but are these blogs directly hateful to non-feminists? I've never seen hate speech in them against people who think differently, or name-calling, like I've seen in some of the non-feminist blogs. I don't enjoy going into an FA discussion only to find bitter words about "feminazis" and all that. It's like a slap in the face. I don't think the feminist bloggers have done the same against the other side, so it feels uncalled for.

I’ve never read anything on CC’s blog that I believe is homophobic, for instance — she doesn’t hate gays, she just doesn’t like the idea of her life having to conform to what she sees as groups that are less about civil rights than they are about power-lobbying.

I'm not going to go deep into this, but I don't think homophobia means hating gays on a personal level. I think the most prevalent form of homophobia is being opposed to gay rights because it's all about power, or all about hurting Christianity, hurting heterosexual marriages, etc. The famous "homosexual agenda" that some people rave about, but that I've never encountered among actual gays. In short, I think it's a conspiracy theory. Even in what you said - "her life having to conform to" - what does she have to conform to because of gay rights groups? No one's forcing her to have a lesbian relationship. No one's even forcing her to accept gays. The only thing she has to do is accept that society as a whole is becoming more accepting of gays. It's about tolerating different opinions and values.

You have to understand that there are many people who think that demanding special privileges for people based on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion or non-religion, etc is hateful and discriminatory. This is something in my experience not a lot of social left-wingers really grasp.

I grasp it alright. It's just that I disagree, and in fact think it's an abuse of the terms "hateful" and "discriminatory". No one's asking for "special privileges" for gays. The right to marry is something heterosexuals take for granted, but when it comes to gays, it's suddenly a special privilege. Ditto the right for adoption. These are not special privileges, they're civil rights. Like, you know, freedom of choice. And if gays were to get these rights, the heterosexuals would lose what exactly? Nothing but their privilege as the only acceptable sexuality. I don't see the discrimination and hate in that.

I see a huge contradiction between being a fat rights activist and being against feminism, gay rights, etc. I really don't see how you can be for one civil rights group but against another - either you believe in equal rights for everyone or you don't. If you only support civil rights groups that directly serve your goals and resist those that want to take away your privileges, I consider that selfish. No, every heterosexual doesn't have to be a vocal gay rights supporter, but to go against our rights because you think that's somehow taking away from yours? I don't consider it a positive expression of a differing viewpoint. I consider it discrimination.

But back to feminism: I want to point out that I think there's a middle ground between being a feminist and being anti-feminist. You can agree with some things feminists say, disagree with others, and have calm public discourse about it. For instance, if a feminist blogger posts about women's position, you can make a post responding to it, pointing out where you think s/he has it wrong. If a feminist says things that you consider hateful towards men or other women, point that out in a calm post. If they were truly being hateful, this wins you points, and it serves to give a voice to the non-feminists in the feed.

But publicy berating feminists means that you're against all feminists - even the moderate and polite ones - and all concepts of feminism, including equal rights for women. If you're talking about the most extreme feminists only, make that clear in your speech. Moderate feminists, who might agree with a lot of your other points, have every right to be offended when you say feminists are man-hating nazi fanatics. Feminism is something that's very important to a lot of women - and men! - and it's hurtful to make us into some pack of feral cats that attacks men and culture left and right.

So who deserves a voice? Why do the left-wing extremists deserve a voice on the feeds, while the (only) right-wing extremist doesn’t?

I think that both deserve a voice. Or more precisely, everyone who's willing to have respectful discourse instead of hatefully attacking others has a right to speak. But lately, it seems like the right-wing, non- or anti-feminist blogs have been having a contest at who shouts the loudest and offends the left-wing feminists the most. Not to mention that they're leaving the fatosphere and deleting their blogs left and right. To me, this is counterproductive with gaining a voice in the fatosphere. I'm not against having separate feeds, but it does seem like the Fat Liberation feed has become some sort of "voice of the resistance" where people feel safe to make covert and overt attacks at liberal feminist blogs, sometimes directly but mostly indirectly. I just don't get the impression that they want a fair discussion. If they use the most offensive rhetoric possible, you can be sure that the left-wing feminists are going to respond negatively too. Maybe it makes them feel even more persecuted, but the truth is, they started it.

I mean, look at the quote from Coffee Catholic:

“That’s because you creepy man-looking Feminist/Liberals cannot even begin to imagine what it means to love beyond your selfish self-serving selves.”

And then look at Kate Harding's latest post at Shapely Prose, one of the blogs Big Liberty mentions as an example of extremism in the fatosphere. Tell me - differing views aside, which one is being more diplomatic and dealing more with the shades of gray? Is Kate's style really "OMG I hate men and non-feminist women" in the same way that Coffee Catholic's is the opposite?

A part of political discourse is that we don't always agree with each other, even within the same movement. But hating people who think differently is not a part of that.