2 January, 2008

• Back at the office. Am now thinking of submitting a proposal for the ‘yes weans yes!’campaign… #
• Yes Means yes not ‘weans’i still must be tired! #
• Is the border ever a simulated experience or a prepared experience? #
• So i’m thinking a walk to chipotle in minus 2 degrees is not something i’ll enjoy! #
• Chipotle has cycle jerseys now! #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

I received an email yesterday concerning a call for submissions. This is not an atypical email, since I receive call for submissions quite often. This call for submissions, however, is an attempt to counter the normalizing rhetoric of the anti-rape discourse typically touted as “No Means No!” If you’re familiar with current feminist discourse and the “young” liberals’ movement, then perhaps you’ve heard of Jessica Valenti and her recent text: Full Frontal Feminism?! Valenti runs a popular feminist webzine called Feministing. Feministing dot com is a site dedicated to providing a space, albeit virtual, for young women [and I'm sure others who identify as women] to find their tradition and framework of feminism and their feminist voice. On occasion I peruse this site and have enjoyed the energy and verve I find here. When I read the call for submissions, however, for the Rape Anthology, I found myself a bit stumped. Let me explain.

Certainly, feminism has a sordid history. There is 1st wave feminism , 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminism, and now to popular post-feminism label, etc. I’m sure there will be a 4th wave and 5th wave, too. We have the French Feminists who give us an alternative to the essentializing 1st wave feminist theory in their constructivism and linguistic feminist theory. Certainly, if you’re a regular reader of this site, then you’ll be familiar with my contructionist bent. Despite the plethora of feminist and gender theorists who are rigorously researching and writing to improve the situation for women [including children and men], there are still problems. In fact, despite the variety of feminist theory and “schools”, there continues to be a history of feminist voices trying to find their ground–perhaps even their ground of being.

Originally trained as a theologian, I have seen and studied the varying anthropological theories of gender and their expressions throughout the history of theology. In fact, there are even shifts within theological feminism [or feminist theology] that can be compared to the variety of shifts of the above “waves” of feminism. Many of these shifts are paralleled with what is termed “secular” feminism. The reality is that both feminist theology and feminist theory have the empowerment of women and their status of becoming fully human in mind. The dichotomy of “sacred” and “secular” is not helpful for me but for some, however, this dichotomy makes sense. My point here is to indicate that feminism[s], whether situated within the disciplines of religion or theology or situated within a more interdisciplinary field has the betterment of women as its goal. Side Note: My hope is that my own feminist theory will have the betterment of all humans as its goal. Different disciplines achieve this goal in a variety of ways, but I am certain that the goal is privileged in their theory, discourse, advocacy and action.

One way this goal is achieved is by creating tools and sharing history’s critical social tools in an effort to dismantle the hegemony of various oppressions. One of the many oppressions can be seen in the ways in which women, including women of color, are subjected to being second-class citizens. Their second-class citizenry is further perpetuated and seen in the way women’s bodies are used and/or expected to be used. Women’s bodies, throughout history, have been commodified. Here, I think, the reality of the rape culture is an adequate example of the ways in which feminist theory attempts to theorize to combat the violence against women and girls. This history of the rape culture and the theory that has come afterward ties into the call for submission with which I began this post.

The history of the anti-rape culture [both its roots in advocacy and theory] has continued to emerge to provide a means for women to reclaim not only their bodies but also their sexual experiences. The anti-rape culture’s slogan has become known to the public as “No means No!” The “No means NO!” campaign has been the overwhelming slogan combating the reality of the rape culture. Now, Seal Press, along with Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman, is calling for authors to submit a counter effort to the “No means No!” campaign with “Yes means Yes!”

I cannot help but see that this “new” campaign seems to pit itself against the “older” campaign. My question is: Is it enough to simply stop with the “No means No!” campaign and go into a “new” or different direction? Is it fair to abandon the history of earlier feminists and others who have fought for the safety of women? Is there a way to weave this “older” tradition, the more “stable”[?] tradition with this more ‘radical’ invention of Yes? I think the “Yes means Yes!” campaign provides us with a new point of departure along with provocative questions, but I am not yet convinced that one should abandoned the “old” in an attempt to move beyond today. Having a hermeneutic of suspicion is key, yes, but alongside a hermeneutic of suspension, it is my sense that one should also have a hermeneutic of retrieval.

And so, I’m considering submitting a paper proposal but will only do so by combining the traditions of No and Yes. If you’re interested in reading the call for submissions, I have attached the link below.

You can find the full call for submissions here at Seal Press:  http://www.sealpress.com/docs/yesmeansyes.pdf.