Sister Outsider - Why Won't You Let Me In?

Audre Lorde irks me. Some may say she's brilliant, or progressive, I'd call her exclusive. And frequently contradictory. Even if we, as "critical" readers were to set aside the fact that Lorde rarely fails to title herself as the "black, feminist, lesbian, mother, poet" that she was, any member of her audience is excluded at some point or another by default because we cannot identify with every facet of her identity. As much as she preaches sisterhood she encourages individuality and the self alone. You can't travel the pages of her book without being swarmed by the wasps of her harsh tone, or drowned by the floods of her extreme feminism, or pinned by her anti-racist yet race-bound remarks. I am not black. I am not a lesbian. I am not a mother. And I am not an extreme feminist, for I do not find anything in the extreme to be productive, sensical, or loving towards any "other." It as if she claims that to be a sister you must be an outsider in all aspects, which I am not, nor do I think I will ever be. In all her open-mindedness, she closes the door. And what good are we - the slightly less ostracized, the minimally insecure, the dominant quality in whatever category it may be - if you won't let us come out to play?

A Right to Be Religious

In a recent class discussion, we toyed with the impact and purpose of religion in feminism, so I ask: Is it good or bad to have religion as a feminist? Is it possible?
I dare to say it is possible, and good. (and now, everyone gasps).
Yes, I believe it to be true. As was presented to us in class today, there lies a freeing aspect in religion when tied to feminism. A dual community - one in faith and one in the fight. To be strong and not only educated in, but passionate about one's faith structure, whatever it may be, creates a support structure outside of the self.
In writing we are taught to have and utilize secondary sources, in order to prove and argue our point. Well, in the struggle to gain full rights to write our own stories as women and human beings, why on earth would we not want to utilize any and every resource available to us - why not draw from sources that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years? Just as Bronte does through Jane in her novel, we are allowed (and encouraged) to free ourselves and save ourselves - ourselves. To say that we would be wise to use religion as a resource is not to say that we are then somehow dependent on men just because it is most often men who support religious structures. But rather, if we as women feel like the minority, why would we not then want encouragement and empathy from those like us in history? Three women have books in the Bible, out of 73 books total, all with courageous stories of confidence, defiance, and strength. These women are not lesser because there are less than them, they are all the greater for it! It is a sad state when a fight for the right of women to fulfill their vocation, a way of life to which one feels drawn is somehow separated from a belief because it's title bears the burden of a negative connotation, when in fact, it is rooted in bonding and reliance between humans - is that not the recipe for a united front?
So, then, the question becomes not is it good or bad, but why aren't we using it, as Bronte did?  What are we afraid of?

The Reality of Regina, Karen and Gretchen - Mean Girls is a Documentary

We discussed in class this week the exclusions in the feminist movement, which I found to be a direct reflection on our exclusions of each other in every day life. Exclusion is both directional and intentional; that is to say that one cannot "accidentally" excludea person, race or gender. Bell discusses this concept further in her chapter on sisterhood, inferring that we must appreciate and acknowledge the differences without resenting them or allowing them to separate us. We must all be willing to be a member, not just a leader. To stand next to, not just in front of. To support, not just to be supported. To be the echo, not just the voice. We have become enemies within a group, foes posing as friends. We rest in the complacency of our solitude, with a unified facade. When will we care? When will we acknowledge the beauty that lies in the difference of skin, class, and experience? No one is forcing us to pretend, no one is encouraging this slap-with-a-smile way of life, and no one is leading us who is not one of us. We have a common bond and a common enemy, we are sisters and we are fighters. What we do not realize, however, is that the greatest evil we fight is not that of another gender, or an already shifting society.  There is a "common enemy" in this war, but we so often fail to see is that the enemy is within.

Cosmo, People and Us

What if we became what we read? What would we, as women, become? What would it say about us? What would our purpose be and who would we be to others - more importantly, what would we see when we looked in the mirror? We would be creatures who live on minimal food, but thrive on fashion, beings who do little to empower themselves yet seek to please others. In our analysis of these "grocery aisle texts" we find a despicable version of ourselves. A version that cripples our movement for self-respect and equality, a version that feeds on jealousy, envy and superficiality. One that creates friendship on common hatred rather than a common cause. Bell Hooks writes, "exploitation and discrimination are words that more accurately describe the lot of women collectively in the United States" - why do we buy into it? Why to we buy a magazine that promises to teach us how to please our men, or slap a half-nude photo of Kim Kardashian on the front (or worse, recently the 17 year old Dakota Fanning). What are we doing? Why do we support this, instead of supporting each other? Is that section of every petty magazine really that necessary when they show us pictures to prove that celebrities really are just like us? Do we really elevate them to the point that shots of them in sweats buying groceries or holding their children are what make them human to us? Granted, Bell has a point in saying "we are not all oppressed, nor equally oppressed," since female celebrities transcend racial and gender-based classification in their ever-increasing socio-economic well being and popularity. But then why do we support their exploitation, or allow our own discrimination, to the point that we are used as creatures who exist merely to be art, audience or object. We should put down the magazine, become the artist, the actor and the subject in and of our own lives - moving and fighting for the right to be exactly who we want and deserve to be.