I feel that the “comments” area was not intended as a forum for debate and worry that Mr. Farrow might not appreciate such an activity within his blog. As such, I hope that you can understand and not feel slighted that I am deciding to respectfully not continue with a debate. If Mr. Farrow informs us otherwise, then I would happily proceed.

In respect to your contribution and in the hopes of not leaving this as a ‘cliff-hanger’, of sorts, I would like to go ahead and close, for now, with the following:

To my quote, “It should be okay for a woman to be a woman without having to be held to an obligation of any identity, and that most definitely includes a feminist identity. Once a person is held to an obligation of identity they are being threatened to the loss of their independence.”

You responded, “So then, it would be the same if a person of color didn’t identify as a person of color or even with POC issues on a policy level?”

Here again you example my point of the fallacy that is the propaganda of feminism ideal. You declare that a person of color denying their color is the same as a woman denying feminism. This is a fallacy, and an extreme one at that. Here is why: For that declaration to be true, the only way it can be true, would be if feminism is to womanhood what skin color is to skin color. Skin color is a biological element, feminism, however, is not a biological element.

I am a black man because the color of my skin is black. My very identity contains the fact that my skin color is black. It is impossible for me to not identify as a person of color. However, even as a person of color I still have the choice and independence to decide ‘how I think’, ‘what I feel’ and discover/develop ‘who I am’. Even though I am a person of color I am not obligated to a color-ism lifestyle. Even though I am black, I am not obligated to be a Baptist, nor should I be expected to be one. Even though I am black, I am not obligated to volunteer my time to the NAACP, nor should it be an expectation. Even though I am black, I am not obligated to move to the ‘hood’ so I can be legit. Neither am I obligated to play basketball, run real fast, join a gang, speak with a particular slang or even be pissed that my ancestors were slaves. All of those are available choices for me, but they are not obligations I must adhere to simply because of the color of my skin.

Even though I identify as a person of color, I am not, and rightfully should not be, obligated as to WHO I must be as that person of color.

A woman is a woman because her gender is female. Feminism is an ideology, it is not another word for “gender”. Feminist identity is a choice; it is not a biological fact, nor is it a mandate of the feminine gender. Feminism did not create women and so it does not own womanhood. Feminists seem to have forgotten how to understand that. More and more free-thinking women, however, are waking up to that very realization – the realization that nobody owns them, not even feminism. They are waking up to the realization that freedom means freedom and that any threat to that freedom is a choice they don’t have to make.

You were wondering at why more and more young women are not identifying as feminists. Well, that is why. It is because they don’t have to and, rightfully so, shouldn’t have to. They are asserting their independence and choosing something different. Good for them.

“a) Either you are a feminist or you are against “civil rights”
b) Either you are a feminist or you are a right wing alarmist”

I did not set up that binary at all. It’s misstating my argument. Although, yes, I do think that many people aren’t feminist identified b/c they’ve internalized the rhetoric against it.

“Furthermore, you make the claim that feminism is responsible for “the reason why women have access to higher positions in their career, maternity leave, contraception, the right to choose, etc.” Again, this is false propaganda of the feminism ideal. What is responsible for those things were People who adopted and utilized the mechanism of “Civil Rights”.

Please explain what we are defining as Civil Rights other than an all encompassing explanation of any organizing that is progressive b/c I’m specifically talking about the 60s civil rights movement which often excluded or marginalized women’s issues and queer issues. It was women identified as feminists and/or queer activists — some of which who were also involved in racial activism — that made these strides. I’m not painting an overly rosy picture of second wave feminism, I’m completely aware of its white, middle-class woman centered shortcomings.

It should be okay for a woman to be a woman without having to be held to an obligation of any identity, and that most definitely includes a feminist identity. Once a person is held to an obligation of identity they are being threatened to the loss of their independence.

So then, it would be the same if a person of color didn’t identify as a person of color or even with POC issues on a policy level? I’m not asking for hard-core doctrinal adherence to the tenets of feminism but young women in particular seem all to ready to disavow the ongoing struggle for equality. What I find peculiar is how readily women are encouraged to do this and how utterly whack we all think it is when at person of color makes a point to be anti- civil rights movement gains.

a) Either you are a feminist or you are against “civil rights”
b) Either you are a feminist or you are a right wing alarmist

Both of these conclusions are false propagandas of the feminism ideal. Such fallacies are part of the things that more and more people are waking up and realizing.

Furthermore, you make the claim that feminism is responsible for “the reason why women have access to higher positions in their career, maternity leave, contraception, the right to choose, etc.” Again, this is false propaganda of the feminism ideal. What is responsible for those things were People who adopted and utilized the mechanism of “Civil Rights”. This includes feminists and people with thoughts and motivations outside of and different than the feminism ideal.

No, you do not have to be a feminist to be a supporter of “Civil Rights”. You do not have to be a feminist to be a woman; you can be a woman, a supporter of “Civil Rights” and not a feminist or a ‘feminst identifier’.

Yes, more and more people are realizing this, and that should be okay. It should be okay for a woman to be a woman without having to be held to an obligation of any identity, and that most definitely includes a feminist identity. Once a person is held to an obligation of identity they are being threatened to the loss of their independence. How is a threat against independence not an oppression? How is the expectation of obligation to a specific identity not an oppression?

You ask: “But why throw out the baby with the bathwater?”

The answer: There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is no need to keep the bathwater to keep the baby. There is the need, however, to keep the baby and throw out the bathwater.

Similarly, you don’t have to support policies that help the black community to be black, but there are words for that that we are quick to apply to people like Clarence Thomas and you know what they are. To identify as feminist in any of its incarnations (including womanist as defined by black feminists) to me means to stand in solidarity with other women about issues that effect us as women – women of color, queer women, and trans women. I suspect young women and men who don’t identify with feminism do so b/c they’ve bought into right wing alarmist spin about scary, angry women than any coherent arguments against it.

Point blank: for all of its faults the feminist movement is the reason why women have access to higher positions in their career, maternity leave, contraception, the right to choose, etc. Have these gains beeen meted out equally across the class/race divide? hell no. But why throw out the baby with the bathwater? This world is neither post-feminist or post-racial and by dismissing a whole wing of the struggle, how are things going to get better?

Feminism embraces “civil rights” as a tool and utilizes it as such. However, “civil rights” is not the only tool of feminism.

“Civil Rights” is a mechanism all of its own.

More women are beginning to realize that they do not have to be a feminist to be a woman or to be themselves; they only need to be themselves to be a woman.

I’m truly shocked at the amount of young women who don’t identify as feminists, womanists, (see above) or with women at all b/c if a person of color were to say “I don’t identify with civil rights” I think we’d all look at them like they had lost their damn mind and rightly so.

By disavowing feminism wholly b/c of a couple remarks from people we don’t agree with we forget that there have been several black, hispanic and azn women in the practical and theoretical fight for gender equality and all that that entails. You actually reinscribe a gender vs. race dichotomy where there shouldn’t be one. And women are using the same rhetoric to diss Hilary — she is whiny, emotional, etc. — that men use to invalidate women and whites use to invalidate people of color! There are legitimate reasons to not be down with Hilary, which is why I’m voting for Obama, but stick to them.

I voted for Obama in the caucus and primary and so forth I’m voting Obama!!!