femaleist or world saver?

Yesterday I popped downtown to the offices of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action to participate in a short film about feminism to be shown at International Women's Day in March. I've attended the March 8th event at the Archives since its inception two years ago. It is beautifully orchestrated by a powerhouse coalition of NGOs and volunteers, and attracts guests of various political stances. Both years, beyond feeling thoroughly entertained and socialized to the gills, I have left feeling a flurry of femmy emotions that have come to typify my experience at most feminist events. The general conflict is as follows. "Hooray, look at all of these brilliant and talented women and men in feminist motion! Post-feminism, my ass!" and "Look at all of these 'feminists' who disagree with me! Are they nuts?!" and "Hey, a lot of people misinterpret my 'white' feminism. And I don't like it."


I welcome the political stimulation of the event as well as the uneasy sense of confusion that lingers for days after. It feels good to have a strong reaction to strong statements, and it also feels good to laugh and cry in a room where nobody tells racist or classist jokes, nobody cares where you came from or where you're going, everyone buys their own drinks, and misogyny doesn't sneak in via the opening statements by the emcee or in casual conversation with the bartender. How refreshing! I do, however, take issue with what I see as a major representation of the event, recognized partly in response to my friend Daniel's comment on my Black Swan post...


Two years ago, the March 8th event was called "I am (not) a feminist, but..." The night hosted a debate entitled "Be it resolved, Canada and the world needs more feminists," a short film about feminism, and the winners of a writing competition called "I'm (not) a feminist, and/but..." to which I submitted under the heading "I AM A FEMINIST, AND..."


Pretty feminist stuff.


In 2010, the event was called, "I'm still not a feminist, but..." and screened a film parodying the event called "International Men's Day". Hmm. To me, the event took a turn to the "come one, come all who believe in 'equality'" Not my favourite sentiment, as liberalism reigns supreme through this kind of discourse, precluding complication of social categories in the way I think is necessary for an inclusive movement. Anyway, this year, the event is named "I might be a feminist, but..." As per my promiscuity of the theoretical variety, it is obvious to me that WE'RE CONFUSED.


I get it. The self-proclaimed feminists are going to attend the event regardless of the title, and the not/might caveat attracts those who resist the label. I appreciate the strategy, and I don't mean to get hung up on semantics, but I can't help but see the sneaky titles as a slip into anti/post feminist territory. This is International Women's Day at the National Archives for goodness sake, and our poster rejects feminism(!) even though, in my opinion, the event is entirely feminist from start to finish. It's about dialogue, celebration, confusion and solidarity.


This brings me to respond to Daniel's question which I interpret to ask: What am I trying to accomplish in my daily feminist grind (besides career success)? Do I view my feminist aspirations as "femaleist" or "world sav[ing]"? The answer is neither and both, of course. I'll admit, it is difficult to separate my personal ambitions from survival tactics, but if I lived in a self-sustaining bubble with free coffee and peanut butter, this is how I would answer:


Theoretically, I have an impossible time with 'female' because I'm a constructivist when it comes to gender. Biological categories that seem to unproblematically reign supreme with regard to "women's (read: female) rights" need to be debunked, displaced, transformed because they lead to all sorts of trans/interphobic practices surrounding bodily rights. This said, I'd attend a pro-choice rally today, because I think a "woman's" right to "her" body is a human right. Admittedly, sometimes I push pause on some theoretical musings to participate in a cause.


With regard to world saving, this is a concept that totally freaks me out. While I suppose at its most basic, my goal is to work toward making this world more liveable for more bodies, I can't deploy savior discourse without gagging. I'm not 'saving' anyone or anything, and this will always be something I fight against with regard to development and foreign aid. The missionary language troubles me to the core as it victimizes and denies agency and forms of resistance. While I believe aid is absolutely critical (not to mention, I feel ethically obliged to participate in global solidarity movements against injustice), I won't be the one leading the charge. Call it a cop-out, but it's just too damn complicated for me.


I'll be keeping these notions in mind as I watch my feminism put against others' feminisms in the short film on March 8th. As confused as we are, the survival of bodies and the liveability of lives are hardlines on which we pro- and anti- (and post-?) feminists tend to agree. In a climate of political fragmentation, maybe this is the important thing to remember.