seriously, I know what you mean. I often use ‘megalomaniacs’ as a catch-all.

I don’t know if we must give up on identity politics altogether. Recognizing intersectionality is part of a solution, I think, as well as beginning work from marginal perspectives and never ever attempting to “speak for” a group of women, only allow women to speak for themselves and commit ourselves to listening. It’s difficult to talk about “women” because there are so many kinds of women, and as I read somewhere recently, women aren’t segregated as women - communities organize along class and racial lines rather than gender lines. So women have differing interests according to their particular social location with regards to race and class in particular. BUT I think there is definitely a common experience to be found in being female in this world, and organizing around that common context of struggle, with a common goal in mind of eliminating any kind of oppression women experience (no matter where it comes from), is the only way to go forward.

Hmm there definately should be a word, Im sure if i worked harder at university id know what that word was!

The gist is that women do suffer oppression based on their gender, everyday, in every society, and it leads to a lot of really bad things for women, like poverty, ill health, rape, illiteracy, hunger, malnourishment, maternal death, slavery, forced prostitution, forced marriage, female genital cutting, domestic violence, and other forms of exploitation.

Patrairchy IMHO is probably is the most trancendant form of oppression and finds itself in all spheres of society. Also, feminism represents the viewpoints of oppressed womenhood, something that all women from all societies share in common is thier sex and gender.

However, there are other forms of oppression and womenhood is but one form of common identity between peoples and sometimes i get the feeling that this is downplayed. I think there is a thin line between discussing the factors that are relevant to a feminist analysis of a circumstance and “trying to one-up the minority groups and appropriate their oppression” (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146)

It is this concern that makes it very difficult for me to engage with identity politics. My thoughts are half formed on this TG my apologies if this seems vague but i am going to write about this in detail (not feminism more identity politics) in my blog in the near future.

I don’t know about anyone else, but hearing someone accuse a group of practicing “victim politics” is almost always utterly ridiculous. The connotative meaning of the phrase — that victims are somehow “exploiting” their status on the receiving end of a crime to climb the power ladder — serves to further emasculate the oppressed by making them feel guilty over desiring to better their situation. And even if the phrase is interpreted in the most favorable light, the meaning is still equivocal: the “victim” cries wolf to attract sympathy to further their causes. In that case, I see no victim, only an aggressor.

The accusation of victim politics is simply a method by which an oppressive group can continue to dominate the oppressed and mask blatantly racist/sexist/etc. ideals with a convenient euphemism.

Additionally, it reinforces the weak status of the oppressed (women, here) by painting a pathetic image: the crybaby who uses tears to get his/her way. If I had enemies, I’d certainly want to envision them in that state, helpless and weak, sobbing over trivialities. Of course, the accusation of victim politics also conceals and demeans what the oppressor fears most in the oppressed — independence and ambition. When was the last time you thought of an infant having goals beyond instant gratification?

Funny how these phrases seem so carefully crafted and house all sorts of subtle nuances. Feminism and other forms of activism must combat rhetoric as well as meat-and-potatoes oppression.

What a wonderful digression.