"There are no personal solutions at this time."

June 28, 2015 7:25 PM

They could sometimes admit that women were oppressed (but only by “the system”) and said that we should have equal pay for equal work, and some other “rights.” But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called “personal problems” into the public arena—especially “all those body issues” like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man. The opposition claimed if women would just “stand up for themselves” and take more responsibility for their own lives, they wouldn’t need to have an independent movement for women’s liberation. What personal initiative wouldn’t solve, they said, “the revolution” would take care of if we would just shut up and do our part. Heaven forbid that we should point out that men benefit from oppressing women.

is from the 2006 introduction by Carol Hanisch to "The Personal Is Political"

more articles by Carol Hanisch

posted by the man of twists and turns (9 comments total)

Political struggle or debate is the key to good political theory. A theory is just a bunch of words— sometimes interesting to think about, but just words, nevertheless—until it is tested in real life. Many a theory has delivered surprises, both positive and negative, when an attempt has been made to put it into practice.

Cool.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:07 PM on June 28, 2015

--> "We need to change the objective conditions, not adjust to them." <--
posted by sallybrown at 8:23 PM on June 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'm about it! Also, her 2006 follow-up letter points out how her original one became weaponized, and that's definitely something to keep in mind. The words of women become cudgels to beat them with. As it goes with a lot of marginalized communties. The "if women stood up for themselves" line turns into "well maybe if you weren't so aggressive" when its challenge is actually met.
posted by Ashen at 5:29 AM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

I still see leftists saying that women's issues are just not important, and that we should be concentrating on the Revolution (after which, presumably all the problems will be solved, since they're the fault of Capitalism). I've seen it happen in conversations here on Metafilter. That's why I consider Leftism and Feminism to be orthogonal movements.
posted by happyroach at 6:43 AM on June 29, 2015

That's why I consider Leftism and Feminism to be orthogonal movements.

In practice they do seem to be much of the time, but in my opinion, they shouldn't be, because Leftism is really supposed to be all about empowering the powerless (or the relatively less powerful), categorically. And women's issues are central to that cause, in any honest accounting, not peripheral to it.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:55 AM on June 29, 2015

We can use the concept of intersectionality to address the misperception that different movements are competing with each other for a limited prize. Racism, feminism, unfettered capitalism, etc. all overlap, interact and feed each other. You can't just pick one and try to take it down and then move on to the next.

Likewise, gay rights, feminism, disability rights, and anti-racist movements can all feed and strengthen each other. Those trying to hold back reform know this; they seldom just attack feminists, or gays, or black people.
posted by emjaybee at 7:13 AM on June 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

I can't believe I never read "The Personal is Political" until now. It was one of those things I always meant to do, and then somehow in all the hurly-burly and general messiness of life, somehow assumed I had done at some point.

One thing that always annoys me is when people talk about "people" and either "the system" or "the government" as two totally separate entities. Both "the system" and "the government" are made up of people. If people's minds can be changed, than the system and the government can change, according to the minds of the people who work within them. It's no simple or easy task, to be certain, but it's not like they're some alien entity separate from the rest of us.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:00 AM on June 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

While trying to think how I would change “The Personal Is Political” paper if I could rewrite it with today’s hindsight, I was actually surprised how well it stands the test of time and experience.

Same here! I first read "The Personal is Political" more years ago than I care to remember, and I could barely grasp some of it, even though I called myself a feminist. Now it just seems plain common sense. It's hard for those who weren't there to grasp how deeply radical these ideas were in 1969-70; sexism was so omnipresent, so taken for granted, that women themselves had to fight their way out of a fog of patriarchal assumptions (and were attacked by other women for doing so), and as for men, forget about it. Thank goodness for "women's lib" (as we used to call it)! And thank you, MetaFilter, for helping make Hanisch's ideas seem plain common sense.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on June 29, 2015 [10 favorites]

Hanisch is one of the authors of Forbidden Discourse:
The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of “Gender”[PDF] - "An open statement from 48 radical feminists from seven countries. August 12, 2013" which includes

Transitioning is a deeply personal issue associated with a lot of pain for many people but it is not a feminist strategy or even individual feminist stance. Transitioning, by itself, does not aid in the fight for equal power between the sexes.

This piece was linked in this MetaFilter thread, along with several responses.

I'd remind Hanisch of a certain pithy phrase, but she would probably say I'm using her words against her.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:41 AM on July 17, 2015 [1 favorite]