Now, before anyone thinks that I am pro-recession, pro-depression, or anti-prosperity, let me squash those thoughts right now. As an American citizen and feminist, I recognize that the economy is run by consumers and the face of the global market largely depends on the flourishing of the US economy.

That being said, I offer this: Maybe this is an excellent time for US Americans to experience a financial crisis. Maybe there are some gains to be made in this difficult time which cannot be measured in the Dow Jones or home buying rates.

Black Friday is called Black Friday because it signifies when business companies are supposed to go into the black, showing surplus and profit. Notoriously, this is the day when US citizens open their wallet and begin the costly splurge of commercial gift-giving.

The less news I watch and the more observant I become of the people around me, the more I am convinced that this time of crisis can be an opportunity for many to deepen their lives and rethink the function of material goods in their homes. Perhaps a bit simplistic, but the concept of Americans re-evaluating what is necessary and what is superfluous in their homes sounds fabulous to me. It is common knowledge that US Americans are some of the most wasteful citizens on the planet, nonchalantly eating more than our share of the world’s pie and throwing out any leftovers that weren’t ours to begin with. We are all guilty of this. Our society thrives on convenience, comfort, and “if it’s there, use it up” mentality.

What does this – consumerism, wastefulness, and intentionality – have to do with Feminism?

Alot.

Jessica Hoffman wrote an excellent article that envisioned what a feminist liberation looks like and how systematic powers (racism, economic hierarchy, ableism, sexism) – particularly capitalism – function as a multi-systematic team of oppression. She writes that it is not enough to recognize “intersectionality,” as a lens to view feminists themselves, but also how to analyze the existing oppressive forces around us. She argues, “I do think that resisting capitalism, globally, is integral to antiracist, progressive, social-justice feminisms — that is, the only kinds of feminism I think have a chance of liberating anyone/everyone, and the only kinds of feminism I want to have anything to do with.”

(I’m not going to rehash her points, you really should just go and read yourself.)

I’m not going to go on a rant about capitalism, but I do want to apply a similar analysis to our daily lives, questionable (at best) practices of spending, and the connection to clear(er) feminist practices.

Recently, I viewed a short clip on Momversation which covered how to talk to your children about the financial crisis with your children. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s a commendable act to to take the proverbial teachable moment to educate your child about good spending habits and helping them understand the power of a dollar.

However, if what it takes for the middle class US mothers to understand that borrowing a book from the local library fares better than purchasing one is a national crisis, then we are in more of a mental crisis than financial.

This crushing tragedy has devastated millions, leaving no redeeming hope in the gross squandering of millions of dollars that vanished the retirement and life-long savings of so many. And there is no delight in watching the belt tighten around those who are already economically anorexic either. However, for those of us who are in positions of power, for those of us who stand to gain by losing our laissez-faire attitudes, these times are an opportunity to sift out the unnecessary in our lives. We need to seize the clarity that comes with living deliberately by choosing what we most desire and transform ourselves into a YES culture. More specifically, we develop a culture that says YES when we truly desire something, not just to lukewarm likings.

There is an art to being selective. It requires forethought, work, and self-knowledge. Living simply is not about living bare. It is not about turning on money or frowning in the face of material goods. If US Americans took a radical moment to choose what they most want from their lives, and this holiday season, this Black Friday, they took this day to go into the surplus of life instead of adding to the profit of companies, our financial constraints would not be so newsworthy. What would we look like if, just for today, instead of Americans dining out, we’d have a few more meals in our homes. Instead of pacing the aisles of Best Buy to upgrade our gadgets, we stroll down our sideswalks and breathe. The “restraints” of a financial crisis can be easily opened into a national pause in our senseless habits of spending. That moment could offer infinite dividends.

It is not enough for feminists to recognize inequality and racism in consumer marketing. It is not enough for feminists to go to libraries instead of popular bookstores. It is not even enough to limit our spending. This is not just about frugality, but about being more vociferous. Being or becoming a thoughtful feminist means growing into somewhat of a prophet. As more and more women become educated, salaried, and employed, their consumeristic power is increasing, as is the advertising directed toward them.

Feminists are and should be the ones to innately sense where we are going when our practices do not match our future goals. A thoughtful feminist is a selective consumer, one who understands the complicated relationship between availability and accessibility, personal fulfillment and superficial enrichment. S/he is the one who most fiercely advocates for a spiritual retreat from the crowds and allows a discriminatory practice of her monied and life investments.

She knows when enough is enough.

Cross-posted at Bitch Magazine.

In a recent article in Time magazine entitled, The New Liberal Order, Peter Beinart asserts that “feminism is so mainstream that even Sarah Palin* embraces the term.” 

And with that, Beinart touches on two of the deepest problems of contemporary feminism, mainstreaming and the politics of verbal identity.  Membership, inclusion, participation – whatever term you want to use – is fast becoming a backlash as feminism goes Main Stream.

Can feminism – an ever-evolving charge of empowerment and energy – be mainstreamed?  I say no.  At least, not in its entirety.  One of the most disturbing trends happening is the political mainstreaming of one specific strand of feminism as feminism whole.  This marketing of feminism sells one kind of history, work and concept of female empowerment and, for the right price, conflates mainstream feminism with Feminism (plural). When feminism is explored in media, it is typically referring to White, middle class, educated, US-citizen heterosexual women.  

There are two problems that unfold with this mainstreaming.  The first problem is that it markets feminism as a monolithic group; a group of feminists who desire, believe, and work for the same ideal, which is wildly simplistic and erroneous.  This faux claim of sameness and singularity ignores the diverse work and accomplishments of other feminists who do not fit that category and often go unrecognized. This portrayal of feminism also feeds its gritty US-history of exploitation, racism, neglect, and betrayal of women of color and their communities.

Mainstreaming reinforces the one size fits most feminism.  It dissolves the diverse and bright faces of feminism and, in its place, creates an illusion of a bull’s eye, with the middle target being the most significant feminists to focus upon.  The problem with the bull’s eye visual is the outer circles, once again, become the marginalized.  

Not one group of feminists is more important than others, but it would be naive and foolish to ignore the layered oppression of poor women of color, single mothers with no healthcare or access medical treatment, or violence at the border or against transwomen.  Those most vulnerable need not be in the center, but feminists must be able to distinguish between centrality and urgency.  Not one group is more significant, but there are steep levels of urgency and severity.  While needs are different, they’re equally critical to the plural movement of feminism.  Think of the Olympic rings.  You cannot pick one circle without choosing the others as well.  You cannot identify the Mintaka as one star and claim it is the entire Orion belt. Mintaka may be a bright star, it may be necessary, but it’s not the Orion.  It’s merely a part of it.  

The individual over collective mentality breeds another type of ugliness within feminism.  More and more pop culture is featuring Sex and the City with its racist and classist depictions as the playground for empowerment.  And, more and more are agreeing to sell this one type of feminism for personal gain.  bell hooks wrote in Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory, “As more and more women acquired prestige, fame, or money from feminist writings or from gains from feminist movement for equality in the workforce, individual opportunism undermined appeals for collective struggle.  Women who were not opposed to patriarchy, capitalism, classism, or racism labeled themselves ‘feminist.’ Their expectations were varied.”  

As radical liberation is now confused with sexual freedom, reproductive health is overshadowed by abortion, and the term “women’s interest” is conflated with “fashion,” it opens the door wider to misrepresentation and feminist evasion. On one hand, you have Sarah Palin, a high powered politician who endorses victims to pay for their own rape kit, to claim herself feminist, and then you have other grassroots workers, community organizers, multitasking mothers working two jobs who would never touch the word with a ten foot pole.  Let me be clear, though.  The problem is not filtering out who is “allowed in,”  the problem is that mainstreaming feminism and individual profiting has sacrificed feminism as a collective, its one strength and hope of saving itself from imploding.

The point of feminism is to work for the radical equality and liberation of all.  It does this through the lens of gender that incorporates the other salient factors of race, citizenship, religion, socioeconomic status, education, and sexual preference into analysis.  Feminism is not looking to form a club with prerequisites, but it does necessitate consistency and accountability. The pejorative history of US feminism mandates a rigorous and nuanced exploration of difference. However, to sustain a movement, those differences cannot be in conflict with the goals of equality.  We need to make space for conversation, but we need not make space for kyriarchal practices in the name of inclusion. 

*Palin later rejects the term because she does not want to “label” herself.

Cross-posted at Bitch Magazine and APA for Progress.