FEMINIST LESSON #1 There are different kinds of feminism. Over the cycle of the election between Obama and Clinton feminists have been referred to countless times. There have been myriad assertions regarding what it means to be a feminist, how feminists feel about Hilary, and what feminists are saying about her treatment as a candidate. Feminists have become (yet again) a coagulated group--the distinctions between schools and histories of feminism gone by the wayside. Lucky for you, I am a "master and artist" of feminism. No, this is not a joke, I have an MA in Women's and Gender Studies. I was on my way to receiving my doctorate in this field before I got so troubled by the practice of academic feminism within the frame of a complex theoretical apparatus bent on progressive activism and the subsequent painful contradiction of these two things, that I ran like my hair was on fire far away. I am not giving this background to brag, by the way. Believe me, if anything my feminist training is something I have learned to hide as the thickness of my skin has decreased. But, it is time for a quick lesson in feminism. Please see this site for a layout of the multiple types of feminism. Like most history, they are described within a linear progression (although some effort is made to show overlaps). But let me give the basics. Liberal feminism is one of the first manifestations. The tenet: Women are equal to men and should be treated as such. Folks like Betty Friedan in the early 60's made this assertion. NOW is a direct descendant of this feminist approach. Radical Feminism has its roots in Marxism. The tenet: It's not the workers--it's the women who will cause the revolution. Part of that revolution includes the disintegration of heterosexism. Lots of lesbian feminists work from here. The revolution will include the elimination of reproductive sex. The re-working of sexual relations(via a revolution similar to the one Marx identified for work relations) is the way to transform women's social position. Then, we have cultural feminists. The tenet: Create a culture of women--valorize femininity, valorize sex between women, valorize pregnancy and birth. Valorize anything and everything woman oriented. VALUE WOMEN. Then, there are eco-feminists, marxist feminists, psychoanalytic feminists....it goes on and on. I would challenge you to locate the kind of feminism being asserted in defense of Hilary's candidacy. It seems to me that if anything, we are seeing liberal feminism: Get a woman into an office normally held by a man. WE WIN. My feminism? Well, I'm a Marxist, but I am also a post-modern thinker. So I combine a lot of things to articulate what feminism means to me. Yes, sexual relations create cultural paradigms that lead to discourses of femininity that explain the oppression of "women". BUT ALSO--and this is critical--SEX IS DESCRIPTIVE --GENDER IS CULTURALLY DETERMINED. In other words, there is no such thing as "woman." There are female sexes, male sexes, and multiple combinations of the two, identifiable through which set of sexed body parts one has(There are at least 5 sexes) . "Woman" is cultural artifice. So, feminism is not about advocating for one gender over the other. That premise (most visible in the assertion that women or feminists should by default support Clinton) is based on a culturally constructed, and thus problematic set of assumptions. (If we are calling into question culture as patriarchal, how can we adopt the constructed version of woman it has presented us with?) Thus, feminism is a perspective. A praxis (the link of theory and action). To be a feminist is to: Recognize the need for social transformation in all aspects of the cultural locales (or hot points) where oppression (of any kind) takes place. Subjugation based on race, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation etc. becomes feminist work. As a matter of fact, I view the feminist frame, as on par, only with environmentalism as a philosophical approach that can encompass the multi-faceted aspects of a call to revolution that we need to upset the insidious and overt discourses that lead to any type of marginalization of a people for the interests of a few. Capitalism, patriarchy, racism. These are institutions that must be undone. Feminists work towards actions that will result in the progressive de-stabilization of these paradigms, and move towards open possibilities for a different future. As a feminist, as I have stated before, I support Barack Obama as the feminist candidate. Of course gender is at play in this contest. Of course race is at play, and of course class is at play. Oh, and sexual orientation, and religious affiliation. All of those cultural discourses are important. But as a feminist I look for the candidate that attempts to resolve and transcend those discourses that shut-down possibilities and create further divisions. Name them, change them. Do not sit with them and propagate them, and allow a cultural paradigm of dualism to determine your choice of candidates! As a feminist, I vote for the person who is willing to talk openly about all of these issues and then tell me a vision for the future that, while not creating homogenized unity, will still allow for hybrid combinations of subjectivity without the confines of static identity. To say that, as a woman, I must support the female candidate makes sense in terms of a historical shift. Yet it is just as impactfull, from my feminist perspective, to have an African-American president. Especially, since the female candidate remains committed to social networks mired in practices of marginalization. To assert otherwise is to discipline feminism with the patriarchal frame it claims to oppose. Barack Obama has proven his commitment to peace, resolving race relations, calling into question economic exploitation, and involving citizens in true democratic practices through the elimination of special interests. LOOKS LIKE FEMINISM TO ME.