My Bible arrived today, in the form of a beautiful, feminism critiquing-filled magazine. I have four favorite times of year, and those are my quarterly Bitch arrivals. They are fighting budget problems just like the rest of the world, which is why you'll now find more on their site than in the actual mag, so check them out. Amazing. Even my onerepublicanfriend will most likely find something ze likes.
(See, I used ze so no one knows how you identify, ORF, therefore protecting your anonymity even more.)
I think I feel in love (again) today when reading their responses to letters and comments on last quarter's issue. Last issue was the Noir issue, and featured comics by progressive artists, many that dealt with body issues and pasts full of sexual violence. Lots of readers wrote in about their disgust at a certain comic, calling Bitch out for their supposed "safe-space" place in the publishing world. The editors responded by apologizing, but then also explaining that Bitch was never and is not now meant to be a "safe-space", as it is a place for critical review of a variety of pop culture media. They emphasized the fact that publishing something is not an automatic endorsement, and, duh, feminism encompasses a WIDE range of views, an idea that once the entire movement embraces, we will see more willing to [explicitly] identify as feminists.
I also agree with this since I hate the term "safe-space". To me, that term implies being able to create a space, ideal, or thought with which a multitude of people completely agree, which seems impossible to me and also leads to complacency and lack of critical thinking. Agreeing to disagree is the foundation of intelligent discourse, right ORF?
2 comments:
B. you are too good to me with the "ze" pretty funny - - I laughed out loud.
On to your question - which I will answer with a related article I read recently stating that the number of Americans who live in "always-red" or "always-blue" counties has dramatically increased over the past few years. The author speculated that this was due to readers "self-selecting" reading material (some news, some blogs, God knows what else) from the wide range of avialable items (widely range due to the ease with which information is obtained ... internet etc).
Because the readers self select, the author theorized, they already tend to agree with what they are reading (safe space) thereby reinforcing their own beliefs.
I think we may agree (for once) that this is a little scary as comfort leads to complacency (good word B). That being said - this probably means that I should take you up on your offer to check out your magazine - but it also means you should look into making certain you reading more than one magazine a quarter.
I would take your final statement one step further "agreeing to disagree" is good, "agreeing to continue to conduct civil discourse despite disagreements" is better.
Well, B, take it from an old feminist, this has always been a failing (?), limitation(?) of the feminist movement---the idea that we all had to think exactly alike on each and every issue, have the same response to each and every issue (and demonstrate it) or we weren't really feminists---talk about your save space. So to say that "and, duh, feminism encompasses a WIDE range of views, an idea that once the entire movement embraces, we will see more willing to [explicitly] identify as feminists." is to express what many of us have been waiting more than 35 years for the fem. movement to adopt.
Re: the more general point, and continuing what ORF talks about, I think that we all have the potential of expecting/accepting only save space as soon as we self identify as something or w/something---as a feminist, as a liberal, as a Republican, as an environmentalist, as a criminal defense attorney---we expect that everyone else who chooses that label for themselves will hold the same views and values that we attach to the label. One need be vigilant to not fall into lazy group think in the guise of safe space, and to realize that no matter what the labelling device, you have to continue to understand that you don't have all the right answers, and whether within the group or outside it, or the contra-group, we should adopt ORF's suggestion that agreeing to conduct civil discourse despite disagreements is better.
Post a Comment