Vivian Fu is a San Francisco based, San Fernando Valley raised photographer pushing the limits, shattering boundaries, and taking names. She earned her B.A. in Fine Arts with an emphasis on photography at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 2012, and has since been creating an incredible body of work exploring identity, delving into her own experiences as an Asi… Read More
I’m on bust magazine’s website! Check out my interview :3
Anonymous said: Excuse me but if feminism is not about equality then do tell what is it about? because it's Not to be above men. it's not to crush them and strip them of power as they have done to woman. It's for women to be treated, respected,valued and made to matter as men do to each other on general principle,but not to woman. if that's not seeking equality i don't know what it is. (because a world where either gender treats the other as an object and as inferior is NOT a better world)
I just took the longest sigh because there is so much going on here. Alright. Please forgive me in advance if my thoughts seem jumbled and incoherent, as I’m on a mobile and trying to string together many open ended ideas into a cohesive stream of thoughts.
So your definition of feminism is a global society where men’s social and economic positioning is not threatened or challenged in any way? Though much of it is built upon the subordination and labor extortion of women? So much of your concern lies with reassuring men that their privilege won’t be comprised and it really begs me to wonder if you’ve ever seriously engaged with or have a holistic understanding of serious feminist literature that tackles the economic exploitation of women globally speaking. What is feminism to you, anon? What’s its end goal? Who does it prioritize? Is it empowerment or liberation? Is it individualistic or collective? What sort of a world do you envision in your ultimate feminist utopia?
Look, I’m sorry to break it to you, but women produce 60% of this world’s labor, while owning 10% of the fluid capital and 1% of all purchasable land. Are there racial, geographical and historical nuances that go into this? Absolutely. But the gendered lines of exploitation are very clearly delineated. Let me explain this to you. This positioning you speak of that men occupy, which you seek to be “equal” to does not exist without endorsing capitalistic violence and cannibalizing other human beings, robbing them of their autonomy and security. Men did this to women and that’s how men have been able to bolster a culture that thrives from the degradation of women.
The term equality is shallow. It means nothing essentially. Equal in terms of what? Talent? Capital? Creativity? Skills? Social positioning? In all ways? How can we be equal in talent or skills or creativity when our brains and wiring of our bodies aren’t the same? How can we be equal in capital when many people around the world haven’t even been completely indoctrinated into western globalization and their revenue exists in agriculture, herding, clothes weaving and pastoral farming? The world is an immensely complex place that hosts a countless amount of people and ways of living. What informs us and our lifestyles are a vast array of factors, such as climate, religion, race, class and history. I’m trying to understand how equality can give birth to anything but uniformity, which is wholly counterintuitive to the end goal of all liberation politics.
Equality is a euphemism for assimilation. Instead, shouldn’t we strive for a world that destroys all innately oppressive structures and titles? Do you wanna know what kind of women are regularly heralded as being equals to their male counterparts? Hillary Clinton. Condoleezza Rice. Female US and IDF soldiers. How many infographs have you seen that portray essentially oppressive characters as “breaking boundaries” and shaking up the core (of what, I don’t know)? When in reality they aren’t dismantling structures, they’re just providing a facelift to it. Neoliberal feminism has created a society in which women such as Hillary Clinton, who are unabashedly anti immigration, pro Israel and have a familial legacy of violence are given more airtime and praise than revolutionary women who remain exiled, such an Assata Shakur. The former desires to be one in the same as her male cohorts, while the other continuously critiques the structure of male supremacy. Definitely not a coincidence.
Feminism, at its very core, is a liberation ideology that intimately engages with the harmfulness of masculinity/femininity as traits coerced upon children, teens and adults, how gendered injustices come into fruition through social, academic, economical and labor institutions and how we can create a world which upheaves patriarchy as a global phenomenon. The fact that equality (more clearly understood as assimilation) and a society in which women exploit men are the two only foreseeable options to you is troubling, to say the least and sounds like an iteration of patriarchy itself (either you join or you’re against us).