|
Feminism (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Aside from that, I also think feminism has done a spectacularly bad job at winning over neutrals. True feminism tends be very academic and thoughtful: even the most important feminist works such as The Second Sex or The Female Eunuch* are not the kind of reading the masses can get behind. Most people are anti-intellectual at the best of times, and when it's a woman activating those insecurities they're even more likely to be hostile and unreceptive. There has never really been a good translation of these big ideas into simple concepts the masses can digest, and so most of the people who criticise feminism have no real understanding of what it's trying to say.
*I should also add that these are some of the most populist femininist texts. Feminist writers like Hélène Cixous have absolutely no chance. |
OMG i said almost exactly that in my dissertation, though more related to postmodern feminism than radical or liberal. postmodern feminism would have to be the biggest waste of time ive ever encountered in political theory. if your idea of feminism is to titilate the intellects of a handful of feminist lecturers, then i think you're kinda missing the point, woman.
i never read the female eunuch but i did read greer's follow up, the whole woman. it did a pretty good job imo of being easy to read, wasn't your typical polsci theory textbook or anything. greer s me mostly but still respect some of the views she puts forward.
i enjoyed catherine mackinnon and alison jaggar the most. i dont remember Cixous but she's in my bibliography so apparently ive read her haha. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
OMG i said almost exactly that in my dissertation, though more related to postmodern feminism than radical or liberal. postmodern feminism would have to be the biggest waste of time ive ever encountered in political theory. if your idea of feminism is to titilate the intellects of a handful of feminist lecturers, then i think you're kinda missing the point, woman.
i never read the female eunuch but i did read greer's follow up, the whole woman. it did a pretty good job imo of being easy to read, wasn't your typical polsci theory textbook or anything. greer s me mostly but still respect some of the views she puts forward.
i enjoyed catherine mackinnon and alison jaggar the most. i dont remember Cixous but she's in my bibliography so apparently ive read her haha. |
I agree entirely, by aiming to the academics the feminist movement has allowed it's detractors to principally define it to the masses; subsequently, many take an unfavorable view of what they believe the movement is about. I think more feminist would do well to state their arguments more in the mode of Christine de Pisan's The Book of the City of Ladies... simple, relatable, subtle, and sufficiently non-threatening to avoid upsetting those with a more "traditional" upbringing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I agree entirely, by aiming to the academics the feminist movement has allowed it's detractors to principally define it to the masses; subsequently, many take an unfavorable view of what they believe the movement is about. I think more feminist would do well to state their arguments more in the mode of Christine de Pisan's The Book of the City of Ladies... simple, relatable, subtle, and sufficiently non-threatening to avoid upsetting those with a more "traditional" upbringing. |
but you can't expect too much, they're only women. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but you can't expect too much, they're only women. |
:stongue:
I actually had a big argument with my Feminist politics prof over whether or not a man can be a feminist... I vote no; what say you? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
:stongue:
I actually had a big argument with my Feminist politics prof over whether or not a man can be a feminist... I vote no; what say you? |
oooh, that's a tough one. and a way better question than anything raised in the OP.
i tend to side more to the yes side, if only because i think you can be a marxist and own a business, or be a hippy and have a job. i think its reasonable to assume that a male feminist will depart from the school of thought sooner than a woman, if only because he's smarter and gets sick of the taste of bull sooner.
but seriously, tough question! i think it is possible, but a man's feminist perspective will always be skewed because, as lilith alluded to before, he doesn't have (******** excepted). as a man you couldn't possibly experience the leftover patriachal ideology in nearly the same way. sure, you can read about it in books or experience it in the workplace, but as its never directed properly at you, it makes it tremendously hard to "get it".
in a somewhat similar vein, its well-recognised that feminism is a middle-class white woman's philosophy, so you could argue that your average feminist doesn't "get" the plight of the black woman either.
COR version: yes, but there are so many caveats to that "yes" that it comes perilously close to a "no". |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Again, I do not think that women are oppressed by language, but languages do have a tendency to favour men.
"mankind"
"man - made"
"man - power"
"mail man/police man".
In using examples, people have a tendency to refer to the undefined individual by the personal pro-nouns "he", "him" etc. We also have a tendency to announce "Mr. and Mrs." but rarely "Mrs. and Mr." |
But it was by no means an accident. In the past, only men were expected to work in the police force. Or delivering mail, for that matter.
It's just like "nurse". The first image to come to mind is that of a woman, as it's a traditionally female job.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Granted, we are slowly moving away from this by using "humankind" and using pronouns like "they". |
Because values are changing. We now have more women in the workforce and, as for the singular day, it has been used for ages - it's just stupid grammarians that have tried to hold it back. Now, more than ever, they've had a hard time trying to stop it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
These things may seem trivial, but they are founded from sexist values, where men were more important, and the woman essentially invisible. I will repeat, I do not necessarily think it oppresses women, but you can't deny that languages often don't recognize women nearly as often as men. |
It depends a lot in the context. Like I said, "female nurse" sounds as redundant as "male policeman"
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
My example with Spanish/French about feminine/masculine wasn't really related to your response. I was referring to how, despite how many women may be in a group, if there is at least one man, the group should be referred to in the masculine form - ellos instead of ellas. This again, is preferential for men. |
But this is exactly what I explained! Language is not "preferential" for men - if anything, it's the other way around. It is because women are assigned a special gender within the language, not unlike socks in my example, that they're able to have their very own grammatical marking when they're absolute. The so-called "feminine" in Spanish/French is not "feminine", that's just a rather unfortunate label (albeit a useful one because it frequently refers to women, girls, and most female names).
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
It seems silly to me to ignore the fact that languages developed in a patriarchal society would naturally adopt a lot of the values in forms of expression etc. I am really surprised that you are disagreeing with me on this. |
Because there may be something to it about the vocabulary due to social structure, and that's flexible enough, but grammar has absolutely nothing to do with this. Otherwise we'd have to make a case against pluralism as much as against feminism, for example.
Are we really prepared to say that grammar favours individuals against groups and, therefore, promotes individualism? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oooh, that's a tough one. and a way better question than anything raised in the OP.
i tend to side more to the yes side, if only because i think you can be a marxist and own a business, or be a hippy and have a job. i think its reasonable to assume that a male feminist will depart from the school of thought sooner than a woman, if only because he's smarter and gets sick of the taste of bull sooner.
but seriously, tough question! i think it is possible, but a man's feminist perspective will always be skewed because, as lilith alluded to before, he doesn't have (******** excepted). as a man you couldn't possibly experience the leftover patriachal ideology in nearly the same way. sure, you can read about it in books or experience it in the workplace, but as its never directed properly at you, it makes it tremendously hard to "get it".
in a somewhat similar vein, its well-recognised that feminism is a middle-class white woman's philosophy, so you could argue that your average feminist doesn't "get" the plight of the black woman either.
COR version: yes, but there are so many caveats to that "yes" that it comes perilously close to a "no". |
I argue no, not because a man cannot understand the plight of women in a paternalistic society though. My view is that it is disingenous for a man to advocate for the equality of women, as any gains made through those initiatives would be gains achieved by a man on the behalf of women, which really only serves to support the paternalism which the movement seeks to overcome. I fully believe men can support, agree with, cooperate with; however, in order to actually be feminist the action must be taken by women so that all gains are wholly attributable to women. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But it was by no means an accident. In the past, only men were expected to work in the police force. Or delivering mail, for that matter. |
this is an important point, and one i think most "trendy" femos ignore. the historical division between men and women was natural, insofar as bearing and raising children is natural or lesser physical strength is natural. men came to dominate the public sphere based on these 2 biological distinctions. it wasn't part of some evil patriarchal plot, it was merely the manifestation of differences between the sexes, based purely on biology and its influence in human social evolution.
its silly to focus on such issues in just the same way its silly to condemn how serfs were treated 500 years ago. it is what it is- a milestone in the evolution of our species.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's just like "nurse". The first image to come to mind is that of a woman, as it's a traditionally female job. |
And because of the image of a woman nursing your tired balls after an impressive coital eruption. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I argue no, not because a man cannot understand the plight of women in a paternalistic society though. My view is that it is disingenous for a man to advocate for the equality of women, as any gains made through those initiatives would be gains achieved by a man on the behalf of women, which really only serves to support the paternalism which the movement seeks to overcome. I fully believe men can support, agree with, cooperate with; however, in order to actually be feminist the action must be taken by women so that all gains are wholly attributable to women. |
that's one (of the many!) problems i have with feminism. i think ideology, or good ideas, are beholden to no one. nobody has some inherent right to own an idea above anyone else. women (or men!) should be thankful to receive support from any of the like-minded. women's suffrage was a really important milestone in the history of our species, but it would not have occured (at least in my country) without the assistance of men.
your position is problematic because it implies an inherent sexism in feminism, and if feminism is inherently sexist, then this opens a whole can of worms. of course, my whole study of feminism was done through the red looking-glass of commie bollocks, and even after 9 years my biases are probably still there :p
without the assistance or tacit approval of like-minded men, women wouldn't have achieved anything with regards to emancipation, so by your standards feminist action hasn't been feminist at all.
i like your thinking! :tongue2 |
|
|
| shaw |
Way too many serious posts for a Theresa thread.
Also, :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Watts |
I always considered Sweden to be a good example of sexual equality, but since I don't live there, my viewpoint is probably skewed.
Or maybe it is pretty alright there. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's one (of the many!) problems i have with feminism. i think ideology, or good ideas, are beholden to no one. nobody has some inherent right to own an idea above anyone else. women (or men!) should be thankful to receive support from any of the like-minded. women's suffrage was a really important milestone in the history of our species, but it would not have occured (at least in my country) without the assistance of men.
your position is problematic because it implies an inherent sexism in feminism, and if feminism is inherently sexist, then this opens a whole can of worms. of course, my whole study of feminism was done through the red looking-glass of commie bollocks, and even after 9 years my biases are probably still there :p
without the assistance or tacit approval of like-minded men, women wouldn't have achieved anything with regards to emancipation, so by your standards feminist action hasn't been feminist at all.
i like your thinking! :tongue2 |
The movement is inherently sexist, as it is entirely concerned with the advancement of the status of only one gender; sometimes to the detriment of the whole. Of course feminists don't like to be characterized this way but it's correct. If one removes the gender bias all together then it's humanism as opposed to feminism.
I agree with you that in order to achieve anything in a paternalistic society the powerborkers (men) must approve or at very least accept. That's not the same thing as advocating though, certainly not the same as being a partisan. An acheivement belongs to the one who succeeded in meeting their goal not to those that allowed the end to be met. If a man advances an initiative that benefits women then it is still a man's doing; therefore, paternalistic. |
|
|
|
|
