Which Feminist Utopia do you want to live in?

[Sascha]

Now this is interesting: I have incidentally found and participated in the following quiz called "Which Feminist Utopia do you belong to?" You can find the quiz here: http://www.playbuzz.com/hunnymag10/wh... The quiz comes from Hunny Mag, a magazine dedicated to intersectional Feminism: http://hunnymag.github.io Maybe some of you have the motivation and time to participate in the quiz, too?

It's full of questions about diverse issues and the answering options seem to be connected to Feminist Utopia narratives from the Second Wave Feminist Movement. I'm not sure about this but I have the impression that some of the answering options point to the possibility that dystopian elements were also included. For example at least in one case you can choose an answer that goes in the direction of a more violent society which personally I would not say is a Utopia but a Dystopia.

Anyway, here comes what I got:

"A: Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy

Yes, you can have my child, you can keep my child. Even with your obscenities and your talking cats. She will be strong there, well fed, well housed, well taught, she will grow up much better and stronger and smarter than I. I assent… She will never be broken as I was. She will be strange, but she will be glad and strong and she will not be afraid…. She will walk in strength like a man and never sell her body… People of the rainbow with its end fixed in earth, I give her to you!

Welcome to Mattapoisett! It is the year 2137. People of all gender, sexual orientation, and race exist in harmony, but it’s difficult to tell whether people are male or female – some men have enlarged breasts, and some women are as burly as Olympians. Mattapoisett is also very racially diverse. This is due to a genetic mixing agreement established a few decades back that ensures diversity in each town but also has radically controlled reproduction: babies are born in a brooder, and a child is born only when someone in the community dies. Motherhood is undertaken voluntarily, and children are raised with a total of 3 mothers who can either be male or female. This unique family structure extends to the entire community, as people often eat communally and make town decisions collectively. There is an emphasis on travel, art, and free spirit, even in relationships – men and women couple without regard for gender or race, and often have multiple lovers simultaneously.
Life in Mattapoisett is lived simply and sustainably. There are no crazy technological advancements here except for the automation of housework. We an agrarian society and we have limited our diet to mainly vegetables and fish. Fossil fuels are a thing of the past and we rely mostly on solar energy. This emphasis on ecological care for our world has made humans more caring towards the earth and each other. If you would like to learn more about Mattapoisett, follow Connie’s journey into the future in Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy!"

Sounds nice to me! :) I have never heard of this book but I am very interested in reading it now! :)

So what do you think about the issue of Feminist Utopia?

Have you already dealed with this issue and/or read some books that focus on Feminist Utopia? What does Feminist Utopia look like according to your own hopes and dreams? And if you have participated in the quiz, what does your Feminist Utopia look like according to the quiz - if you like you can post your own results here for discussion, too. And what is your opinion on the idea of living in such an Utopia?

But let's not be fixed too much to the quiz. You can also use the chance to discuss generally about Feminist Utopia in this thread. What is the significance of such an Utopia for our lives and our actual society - a society which I would say has nothing in common with a Feminist Utopia. And what has to be done that our society moves on into a direction where Feminist Utopia seems to be more real than just a story in a book?

So let's take the opportunity and talk about our hopes and dreams of a Feminist society here and let's see what we have in common! :)

[Ross]

Interesting that the idea women can be equal to men in society would qualify for Plato levels of change.

We could look to Canada and other nation for models that show how to have equal rights. We do not need utopias to have this but might create Plato's vision if we had it.

For non feminist version of a utopian world well we are living in one now dystopian indeed...

[[deleted user]]

Utopias function best as a critique on modern society. They represent an ideal end which can be used as inspiration for change - but they could never be reality. They are fundamentally flawed because of human nature. We are all different and therefore cannot determine what constitutes a perfect society through rational argument. Even the idea that women should be equal to men does not mean the same thing to everyone. For example, some would argue that biological differences make women and men unequal. Does that mean women should not be allowed to give birth or breastfeed children? What happens if someone disagrees? Would the end ideal of equality justify the means used to achieve it?

[MeerderWörter]

I think Mannheim's definition of utopia and ideology is really interesting:

utopia: the idea of a better world, which has the ability to transform the life (communism, by this definition, is a utopia, but really the definition of Marx, not what the sowiets defined as socialism/communism)

ideology: it does not transform the world, but rather the opposite, it keeps everything as it is (in medieval times, the idea of a better afterlife didn't transform the way people acted, but rather it kept them acting in the way they did)

[Sascha]

@ MeerderWörter: Thanks for that argument! I would agree with you that communism is an utopia by the definition you have posted. Communism - as Feminism, too - can bee seen as the promise for a future society where everyone of us can live a good and beautiful life and where we care for each other. And as we still live under capitalism - the same is true for Patriarchy - this means that a transformation of society is needed. At least this is my opinion. As we know not everyone shares this view, as communism is a minority interest in our days.

And besides communism being an utopia, let's just for a few minutes think of communism being a life style. Imagine communism not being in the hands of a state or a political party or any authority but in the hands of all of us. Simply imagine using communism as form of communication and a social mode through which we build our relationships and our society. I think it is absolutely possible to learn to cultivate communism as a life style which helps to build a world together where everyone can make the best of his and her life and where everyone is respected as the individual human being that he and she is and where we care for each other. Being that said, I also think that what I said about communism as a life style, is also true with Feminism.

@ Amy: I agree with you as far as you say that utopias are useful as a critique of modern society and as inspiration of change. But I generally disagree with any argument claiming that social alternatives to the status-quo are not possible or can not work because of so called "human nature". Being that said, I agree with you that we are all individuals with diverse opinions, feelings and experiences. And that's why a so called "perfect society" as you call utopias here can not be determined for all. Okay.

But what is with communication? What if we communicate with each other on a level of equality and democracy and try to negogiate between us what everyone needs and wishes for? Of course utopia can not work as a "big plan" that everyone who disagrees has to subordinate to. But we can try and realize our needs and desires through communication.

There just need to be some basic rules that are valid for all like: "don't use violence in any form, neither verbal nor physical" and "everyone has the same right to speak his and her mind" and "you must not discriminate anyone because of the color of skin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,.." - that kind of rules. I think such rules are important for a respectful conversation, especially in society as a whole.

And the next step would be to start communicating in society about everyone's needs. We can exchange our opinions on an equal level then. But as comes to your example with different opinions about women breastfeeding their kids: It's a question of context.

Someone may feel "uncomfortable" with a woman breastfeeding. And he or she may articulate this opinion if it really has to be. But nobody should have the authority to "allow" or "not allow" that women should or should not breastfeed because that's completely the decision of the women who are in this situation. This has to do with self-determination and with decisions that women think are the best for their kids. So someone may have a "different opinion" on this issue, okay, but nobody has the right to declare "hey woman, I am not comfortable with breastfeeding, so please stop doing that".

[[deleted user]]

I never said that "social alternatives to the status-quo are not possible or can not work because of so called human nature". My argument was there will never be a utopia, which by definition is a perfect society, because we are all different. Communication breaks down barriers but it does not eliminate differences. This means we could never agree on what constitutes a perfect society, let alone the right pathway to achieve that end.

Also, you misunderstood what I meant about biological differences between men and women. Men cannot give birth or breastfeed children; this is a biological fact that puts women at a disadvantage. Some would argue that for a society to be based on equality, you need to get rid of biological differences not just social, cultural, and economic differences. However, in doing so you take something away from women - the experience of being a mother. This is when we have to question whether the means used to achieve the end are better or worse than the original inequality. I used the idea of biological differences because it seemed to form a large part of the utopian world you admired.

[Sascha]

Amy wrote: "I never said that "social alternatives to the status-quo are not possible or can not work because of so called human nature". My argument was there will never be a utopia, which by definition is a ..."

So you are saying that utopias are a "perfect society" by definition. I do not agree with this. Because I have not the least idea what a "perfect society" could be because - and here I agree with you again - we are all individuals with different needs and views. So "perfection" is something very vaguely and does probably not mean the same for all people. But as you have already pointed out and I would agree with you, utopias are useful not only to critizice the status-quo but also as an inspiration of change. An inspiration, not a dogma!

So in my view, this does not mean in any way that utopias are "perfect". Maybe some are meant to be "perfect" by their authors, but that I don't know. I guess there remain enough contradictions and problems in utopias. But at least they reflect about alternative ways of how we could organize our society in a better way than now. That does not mean that every single idea of a utopia has to be set into practise. For example, I think my own quiz result is more of a basis for discussion and should not, as I have already said, be misunderstood as "the perfect how-to-change-the-world-manual".

So I come to your next argument: I think it is simply not necessary, neither to - quoting you - "eliminate differences" nor to agree what constitues the perfect society. I don't even understand why you think this would be necessary? Could you please explain this to me?

Because I just think communication is a good way to exchange ideas and learn from each other and it would be a good idea to start talking about how an alternative to our status-quo could look like and then what is necessary to get there. But this does not mean that we have to "eliminate" any differences between people but it means that different people should meet and learn to know each other and from each other and talk about our needs and desires and what we could change in our society so that everybody is happy to live in that society. And not to forget: not only talking but also acting to get there.

And last not least: I am not one of those people who think that we have to get rid of biological differences for a society based on equality as you seem to suppose. And just for the protocol: I also don't "admire" the utopia of Mattapoisett as you falsly claim. I just think it sounds nice and includes some good ideas.

Like for example collectively making town decisions, the emphasis on travel, art and free relationships, caring for our planet and fellow humans, the deceleration of the technological dynamic etc. On the other hand I have no clear opinion on the points made in this utopia about issues like reproduction control and genetic mixing. I have simply never thought about such ideas before and what these ideas have as implications. So Amy, you understand what I'm saying? For me Mattapoisett is in no way a "perfect society" but it gives me something to think about in what direction society could go to choose a better path than now.

[[deleted user]]

Utopias are by definition a perfect society. The word is derived from Greek and means a "good place" which is also "no place". If you do not understand that definition, you really should not have asked the question in the first place.

[Sascha]

So does anybody here have an opinion about Mattapoisett? Feminist Utopia yes or no? Any comments on the social patterns and the living conditions in Mattapoisett? Could this utopia actually work? And if you don't think so, why? And imagining it was real, would you be happy in Mattapoisett? Or is it not your kind of favorite place where you wanna live - and if so, why?

[MeerderWörter]

Sascha wrote: "So does anybody here have an opinion about Mattapoisett? Feminist Utopia yes or no? Any comments on the social patterns and the living conditions in Mattapoisett? Could this utopia actually work? A..."

Sorry, but I can't help you since I don't know anything about Mattapoisett.
I am curious about the other's responses tho.

[Sascha]

MeerderWörter wrote: "Sorry, but I can't help you since I don't know anything about Mattapoisett."

As do I! I also know nothing about Mattapoisett because it simply is a utopian novel and a fiction in a book. But there are some ideas about Mattapoisett in the original post. So what do you think about all those ideas? For example: what do you think about what is being said about diversity, town assembly democracy, free relationships, food, the emphasis on travel and art, and also the issues of reproduction control and "genetic mixing". Do any of these questions trigger any opinions?

And generally speaking: do you think this sounds like a Feminist Utopia or not? Why yes or why no? Because obviously the book including this utopia is seen as a Feminist Utopia by some people (the people of Hunny Mag). Therefore I would like to discuss these questions and also if it's true that this is a Feminist Utopia or not. If this book is seen as a Feminist Utopia then maybe first it could be interesting to discuss if these ideas are relevant for a discussion in a Feminist context and why. And if so, then make up your mind what makes it relevant for such a discussion. Just a lot of questions, you know!

[Alison]

I think the quiz is a bit of a scam to get you to buy that particular book as despite giving completely contrary answers I got the same result. Personally I don't believe that is a feminist utopia as there are essentially no genders and men and women are a mix of both. Surely in a utopia women should still be women and men men. I think it's more about having equal rights and sharing roles and responsibilities rather than losing what makes you female.

[Sascha]

Alison wrote: "I think the quiz is a bit of a scam to get you to buy that particular book as despite giving completely contrary answers I got the same result.

Okay... damn! If this is true and there are no other results, then it's a scam.

Alison wrote: "Personally I don't believe that is a feminist utopia as there are essentially no genders and men and women are a mix of both. Surely in a utopia women should still be women and men men. I think it's more about having equal rights and sharing roles and responsibilities rather than losing what makes you female."

For me, in a utopia it is not an important issue if women are still women and men still men. But in my view, it's more important that each individual person is living the life in a way he and she wants to live that life. In other words: everyone should be happy and live his and her individual dreams, needs and desires. And I have the impression this is exactly the priority in Mattapoisett.

That being said, yes, probably it's questionable - like in the case of this book - to connect diversity with the end of gender. But only if it means to make genetic experiences and agreements to reach diversity, then I would agree that it's not really a utopia.

But if it means that gender is no longer a category in society by which people are oppressed and discriminated and abused, then it's completely different. Because then I think it just means the end of patriarchy and the end of power being exercized over our lives through gender oppression - but not the end of biological differences.

I think the issue here are questions of how people are treated in a society. And if the "end of gender" simply means that everyone of us is treating each other as a human being, then I think it's absolutely alright to live in a society without gender. Or to use a quote from an unknown source: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people".

[Alison]

OK I take it back you can get different answers. I just went very man hating and violent in my answers and got the following:

D: Les Guérillères by Monique Wittig

By means of stratagems he has stultified your understanding, he has woven around you a long list of defects that he declares essential to your wellbeing, to your nature. He has invented your history. But the time approaches when you shall crush the serpent under your heel, the time approaches when you can cry, erect, filled with ardour and courage, Paradise exists in the shadow of the sword.

This land has no name. We are a tribe of warrior women. This is the separatism rebellion against men. The patriarchy has been overthrown, but at the cost of war and bloodshed. Women of all age, background, and color are celebrated here. We have destroyed bodies, government, symbols, and language, as these forms of knowledge have oppressed women for too long. Women here are free to love all other women, and much of the art and poetry in this utopia praises the clitoris, vulva, and anything relating to female genitalia. We will no longer be slaves. We will fight with bullets, blades, machine guns, heavy artillery, to take back what is ours again.
To learn more about the vicious war and how to destroy the patriarchy to reach this utopia, read Les Guérillères by Monique Wittig.

This doesn't seem very feminist to me either as rather than equality it's power to women over men and in fact abolition of men from society.

[MeerderWörter]

Alison wrote: "OK I take it back you can get different answers. I just went very man hating and violent in my answers and got the following:

D: Les Guérillères by Monique Wittig

By means of stratagems he has st..."

OMG, how anti-feminist is this, please? They definitely don't know what feminism is about.

Thanks for counter-checking tho, Alison.

[Sascha]

Alison wrote: "This land has no name. We are a tribe of warrior women. This is the separatism rebellion against men. ..."

OMG, sounds horrible! And yes, I agree that it has nothing to do with Feminism the way I understand what Feminism is all about. Utopia? I would say no because it's a Dystopia to make a bloody "revolution" against Patriarchy regardless of the lives lost.

[Amanda]

A Utopian society of any kind is unachievable because of the flaws in people. However, my 'Utopian' fantasy is just a place where women and men are treated equally in all aspects of life. I wish for a place where sexual assault and violence does not exist. Also, I wish for a place free of gender stereotypes.

[MeerderWörter]

Amanda wrote: "A Utopian society of any kind is unachievable because of the flaws in people. However, my 'Utopian' fantasy is just a place where women and men are treated equally in all aspects of life. I wish fo..."

If we work for it long enough, we will achieve your utopia, Amanda. And the best thing is, yesterday we mourned, today we start working again.

[Holly]

There were too many "none of the above" answers for me to finish the quiz, so I'm guessing that none of those utopias were for me. I do know that I would fit right into the literary world of Cornwall Coombe, Connecticut in the Thomas Tryon novel,

It is primitive, pagan, matriarchal and rural.......the perfect place for me!

[Holly]

Emma wrote: "Holly wrote: "There were too many "none of the above" answers for me to finish the quiz, so I'm guessing that none of those utopias were for me. I do know that I would fit right into the literary w..."

I hope you enjoy it; it is one of my favorite books of all time. Although it is technically "horror" I found it oddly comforting.

[HaEun]

w

[Ross]

It is interesting that we find so many dystopia options and not enought utopian ones. For me the orignal vision of that great philosopher and social historian Gene Roddenberry is the ideal; women and men equal doing what they can each according to there gifts.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations IDIC people we can do it. first step treat women as equal in all areas of life and society, the rest will follow.

[Samantha]

I'd want something like the Amazons...just no male infanticide.

[MeerderWörter]

The Amazons are too androgynistic for me. I want equality for all sexes and all genders!

[Sascha]

The prominent Feminist author Laurie Penny writes that she creates Harry Potter fan fiction where "magically facilitated post-scarcity robo-communism is (headcanon)".

https://thebaffler.com/blog/harry-pot...

Though I'm not sure how far Feminism plays a part in Laurie Penny's headcanon, it sounds interesting enough to me! Has anybody already read Harry Potter fan fiction by Laurie Penny? And if so what do you think about it? :)