MG wrote:
> By declaring herself "not a feminist," she's gone and done the pigeon
holing
> to others that she does not want for herself. She's gone and labeled
> "feminists" as those who prefer the company of women to men. She's
> consistently reduced the idea of feminist to something as trite as that
when
> it's a whole lot more with more at stake.
I don't know MG, it seems she has had this challenge to call herself a
feminist thrust in her face for years and maybe she has become exasperated
with repeatedly addressing it. I agree her words written on the flat
dimension of the page sound more dismissive than what we would expect of
her. In many past interviews she has articulated her views on the subject
more thoughtfully.
> She's gone and belittled the
> artistry of other women because they are not her "peers." I don't think
that
> anyone is disputing that, it's the labeling that she is participating in
> here. Baez and Collins and Simon may not be her peers but that's because
they
> are not the same caliber artist as she is, not because they are women.
I have also sometimes cringed when she has appeared to diss other female
artists because it just seems mean. Then again, some interviewers have
wanted her to lump her in with artists like Madonna. Nothing against
Madonna, but can you blame her for wanting to dissassociate herself from
Madonna's artistic visions? "Case of You" simply doesn't compare to "Like a
Virgin" and there's no point trying to lump them together in one big generic
female singer songwriter pigeonhole.
> Of course, you also have the whole side topic of what it means to be a
> feminist. There are those who see it reduced to "abortion on demand,"
those
> who see it as "man hating," others who see it as a constricting militant
> philosophy that threatens the fabric of our society. And I'm sure that
> feminism is all that, depending on the individual who claims to be one.
There's the problem. Most people don't objectively think of a generic and
innocuous dictionary definition when they hear the term "feminist" or any
other label. They see it through their own interpretation and perspective.
I can just see Joni calling herself a feminist and then having the various
factions of feminism attacking her for not being a "true" feminist.
> Imagine the difference if Joni had said: "I'm not a feminist! That's too
> constricting for me! Better to call me a "humanist" because I think that
we
> all are who we are, labels and sex be damned, just let me have a chance
based
> on my ability!"
I've always thought of her as a humanist and an individualist. But, as
colin pointed out, even calling herself a humanist
is fraught with misinterpretation because in England and also in parts of
the U.S. it is equated with athiesm. Joni's not an athiest so those who now
claim the term "humanist" would probably take her to task for appropriating
"their" term.
Marcel also made a good point that if she affiliates with a particular
label, then the politically active gatekeepers of that label would probably
pressure her to be appearing at their events and perhaps taking on certain
aspects of their agenda to which she may disagree. What a hassle, really,
and I don't think any of us would want to be put in such a position
ourselves. I've always maintained that she has done her part in advancing
the best and truest aspects of humanism, feminism and liberalism and I don't
think she owes anyone more.
Kakki
