A real (hopefully) discussion RE: "minority" art.

Another one:
8. Why are other feminism and other equal-rights movements seen as much more unanimous than they really are? There are, of course, disagreements within these movements as to what means will result in the right end, and yet these differences always seemed to be obscured.

Even if nobody replies to this thread, at least I had the opportunity, in writing it, to put off looking for a job for five minutes ;-)

1. They should feel compelled to talk about what compels them.

2. Expectations on artists are always trapping, whether on social issues or musical stylings or whatever.

3. Being on the 'outside' is never easy, whether you were born into fringe-ness or acquired it through environmental circumstances...from feminism to left-handedness.

4. Hm. Being against a certain "-ism" does sort of imply that one is comfortable with the status quo of said institution that the particular "-ism" is working to change.

5. Everyone always seems more similar than they really are, and they also are more heterogenous than they seem. (Wow, does that sound like BS to you, too? I swear I didn't mean it to.)

6. I don't believe discussion ever obscures anything. Discussion is ALWAYS good, in my humble opinion.

7. I'm beginning to realize that no two humans have the same personal meanings for the same words. Example: to me, "feminism", in some forms, is a legit movement to balance out thousands of years of patriarchal society, whereas, to this one guy I know who shall remain nameless, it's a "marketing gimmick" for artists like Ani D., Tori Amos, etc. He feels that their music wouldn't be worth anything to anyone if they weren't "feminists fighting for a cause". Personally, I own albums by both of those artists, not because they're 'feminists', but because their songs move me.

8. When movements are lumped into terms they will become associated with each other in the non-movementarians' eyes. The many different types of 'feminism' all seem as one to the non-specific-type-of-feminist, just as 'freedom-fighters' are often lumped in with 'terrorists'.

Sorry, I didn't mean to use feminism and terrorism in the same analogy. And I DEFINITELY didn't mean to type that much.

Nick + coffee x 120 wpm = long ass rant

thanks for being my only poster, nickalicious :-)

Aaron your questions can only be answered in one way unless you bend their premises a la nickalicious. I don't want to answer them the way you've phrased them, I feel like I'm being forced to take the card you want me to take. #5 I don't understand. #7: how can we answer if you don't offer us an example of one of these "certain critiques"? Can you imagine anyone answering "yes" to #1? or "no" to #2? In #4, I think you'll agree that "against" is quite different from "objectively critique"; sometimes it's is exclusive of it. #6: I'm with nickalicious. #3: Aha! You're talking about people with difft backgrounds and concerns finding common cause? This is key for the whole fucking planet. I doubt the word "equivalence" is going to help though. #8: Possibly because of the ham-fisted way these movements are explained by loudmouths who incorrectly intuit that they have everything to gain from their misrepresentation. Possibly.

(I do not mean you, Aaron!)

please delete this thread. thanks.

1. No, certainly not.

2. Yes it is a trap, but it's not a bad idea to bear in mind the sex/race/sexuality/whatever of the author you are discussing, since it's often of some relevance, and it doesn't strike me as a trap of remotely the same magnitude.

3. I think the major distinction here is between inherent characteristics and chosen affiliations. I am white and male, and these seem to be different kinds of associations from my being a lefty atheist.

4. I think feminism's basic meaning is believing that women are equal and that that should be reflected in law and society, so if you are against that you are against equality. This does not put anything that falls within the scope of feminist writing beyond criticism, by men as well as women.

5. I think feminism makes fewer generalisations about women than misogynists do, so not really, though it's always worth bearing this risk in mind.

6. Yes, they can, but you can't address every kind of issue and problem at once, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to address ones that affect large groups. This seems a smallish downside.

7. Not often. Obviously there have been plenty of things that someone dubs racist or whatever for poor reasons, but I think this is less frequent and less serious a problem than all the racist stuff that is more or less unchallenged.

8. I don't think this is often the case - I think the disagreements are often highlighted too much. But there is a basic shared idea at the root of each of these movements (see 4 above).