Like WP, I don’t find that Laura’s Woolf quote contradicts either FP or myself: Woolf’s strategy of “passivity” avoided direct conflict but it didn’t avoid the message, it was personal civil disobedience that challenged the system insidiously. Pacificism is defiance, not avoidance.

Despite this disagreement over what is largely semantics (but semantics are important in activism) I have great respect and affection for Laura as a blogger and commentor. I hope she does come back to comment here again.

In the end, we all do negotiate with the social world; we can’t not. It seems that you, Laura, have been extremely successful in creating routines, habits and an entire style of life that sustains you as a feminist woman. This is great, and no one would deny that. But this does not indicate a failure on the part of others who have different sensitivities, experiences, routines, habits, styles of life (and it’s important to note, I think, that different forms of feminism will situate different aspects of the cultural milieu as oppressive or problematic, without this being a problem with the feminism, or the feminist). The distinction between the particular and the universal is useful to an extent, but it also doesn’t capture the extent to which the two are imbricated: it’s pretty clear from the response here that FP is not alone in her experience, but even if she were, why does this necessarily mean that her experience is not bound up with larger social structures? There is a tendency in political movements generally to avoid complexity in order to present a united and singular front. But this precludes an articulation of the complexities of experience, and as a result, tends to situate those political desires as an ‘ought’ not only for the world generally (as in, the world ought not to be misogynist), but for those who live in it, including the activist. I personally think that we need to work at legitimising an alternative and more complex model of political action which can engage with the experiences of those for whom it is undertaken (as well as those who are (often constitutively) excluded from it, a labour at which many feminists continue to work). To me, the model of political action which requires a singular and united front participates in the conservative politics it is so often working against (which is not to say that this is never a useful position to take, as often this is most efficacious; but we can attempt to challenge this, especially within the ranks, as it were). I am indeed sorry that you feel you can no longer comment here, Laura, and hope that you will reconsider this decision.

And Lauredhel, the point about het, partnered, fat women is a really good one, I think. The logics which sustain women’s sense of being inadequate are so so complex, and that’s a great example. When I teach this stuff, I often have students who claim that the media is to blame (conveniently, the media is a faceless mass, of course, whilst individual media people are never really to blame for ‘giving the public what they want’). I’d never deny that the media participates in it, but sheesh, it’s a tad more complicated than that!

I always assumed that once a woman was married/long-term partnered, the pressure to be bizarrely thin would drop away if one’s partner was openly disdaining of such pressures. But I know women whose partners are completely happy with their bodies as nature intended and these women are STILL obsessed with losing weight. What’s that about?

Because conforming to societal expectations of constant dieting and striving for thinness isn’t all about catching a man. Fat-hate is so, so, so much bigger than “no one will ever love you”.

When you introduced the topic, I immediately started thinking of the other side: het-partnered fat women who are content with their bodies, and whose partners are, still get flak or are looked at with suspicion and disdain – and so do/are their partners, for loving a fat woman.

Actually, this topic does intersect with the thread topic. I always assumed that once a woman was married/long-term partnered, the pressure to be bizarrely thin would drop away if one’s partner was openly disdaining of such pressures. But I know women whose partners are completely happy with their bodies as nature intended and these women are STILL obsessed with losing weight. What’s that about?

A good argument between eloquent proponents of differing viewpoints is the sign of a really useful blog. I have found both sides of this particular argument quite convincing at different points along this thread. I still don’t know whether “I blame the patriarchy” is more helpful than “harden the fuck up” or vice versa, but it’s been a thought-provoking few days.

Anyway, if this is laura’s last comment here, that’s a shame, as I find discussions between people with differing viewpoints more engaging and informative than discussions between those who agree about everything.