Feminism: C or D?

Not too seriously though.

haha 'was this the face...'

...I don't consider two armies killing each other to be a result of "male behavior" but rather an issue of property and class. okay, and the difference is? afaik, this q is one of the central args within feminism (or was): which comes first; if women's oppression is a component in the total picture of oppression, or if women's subjugation is the model for all other classism, racism etc.

I find this a touch facile.

Feminism clearly is/was a very positive development, I think that goes without saying. But nothing's black and white and perhaps one of the negatives was to encourage the general worldview that when women do poorly it's because they're victims of men/society, but when men do poorly it's their own bloody fault. Women = passive victims, men = actively responsible for their own miseries. I remember doing a class in gender studies at university in the eighties, when girls did less well than boys at school. Various theories for this were put forward, on reflection some good, some preposterous in light of later developments. Then, a few years back, the trend started to reverse, and a new debate on why boys were performing poorly germinated. Lots of hand-wringing, lots of talk about the damaging effects of "lad culture", lots of talk about how girls are more responsible about studying, behave better in class, etc., very little talk about boys being victims of anything. They've brought it upon themselves with their silly lad culture, and anyway girls are better at that sort of stuff! I caricature, and yes there has been talk that there aren't enough male teachers, but I think I'm right in saying that the tenor of the debate is very different, that boys are hardly portrayed as passive victims in the way that girls were. Curiously, this most conventional stereotype has lived on even in more progressive discourses.

So if this doesn't have anything to do with external pressures of gender roles, what does that leave? Women are just naturally not as intelligent as men?

To be more facile still: a problem isn't a problem if there's a straightforward solution to it that everyone accepts.

No, Mark S, I think you've got the horse before the cart. It's feminism that's the outgrowth of an enlightenment discourse about social disparities. This discourse is a very good thing and feminism is/was a refinement of it, and it also is/was a very good thing. Which isn't to say that you can't say anything negative about it, and I was simply pointing out that one quite conventional stereotype has lived on in the discourse, and that this conventional stereotype wasn't very useful in tackling discrimination that men as a gender might face. Feminism was specifically developed to tackle discrimination specific to women as a gender, and I think we need to think about other tools as well to tackle problems men as a gender might face.

the other issue is that when it does get halfway serious, it boils down to the fact that people would be better served by reading a book or taking a sociology of gender class instead of arguing about stereotypes and misconceptions. there can't even be a meaningful dialog when people aren't even on the same page in terms of basic knowledge about the subject. i don't mean that it in an 'ooo people are sooo ignorant way' but i do mean it in a "wouldn't it be more productive to educate yourself a little on the topic before you go making sweeping statements about it?" i mean would you talk about Derrida in such an offhand way? (o wait, nevermind ;-)

please note this isn't posted 'at' anymore, it is a musing about the feminism thread and other threads of its ilk.

Nevermind the uppercut or the haymaker referred to before, I think this one is the stilletto slipped between the ribs, metaphorically speaking. Perhaps rather more effective, in its quiet way.

(anyway sorry to be a bit tart jonathan, it wz panic stations at work and i wz in the middle of thinking that one of my colleagues had fucked up and caused me loads of work - he hadn't) (quite the opposite in fact, oops)

I'd love to see a thread where none of the (often misunderstood) academic(?) terms are used: feminism, gender, socicalised, identity-politics, modernity, etc.

It doesn't help to look these up in a dictionary because what they mean to each person is quite different. I know that's true of most words, but these ones aren't used enough for people to get an accurate idea of what others mean by them.

I To clarify, I still want the ideas behind those words discussed, but with relevant explanations/alternatives used at each point instead of those evocative words.

So Blount I suddenly realized I think I read somewhere you were in the navy? I owe you an apology for some of my snotty remarks. Love to hear some opinions from you on your job. You said: "how many wars were started by women btw?"

to which I have to ask, do the people who start wars have more or less involvement than you, a person whose job might have you fighting the war? Do you feel like your job gives you any say in whether a war happens or not? Do you think the fact that fighting is done by hired labor in a capitalist contract change the motivation behind starting a war? What about the people who aren't fighting: do you feel like your job affects them, and do you think it's a privilege for them or not? Well, hey I guess I'm pretty demanding too.

oh my, thread of pure gold and KKKKrazy post deleting!
also, was toraneko for real?
Hey Maura, I reckon you're wrong. I reckon it was because they were fat, ugly, hairy bitches that couldn't get a man in the first place that they started the whinging.
-- toraneko, Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:00 PM (5 years ago)

Wow, those Toraneko posts are really wtf! At first I thought she was being highly ironic, but I'm not so sure anymore. Though it's kinda weird reading someone who (if I remember correctly) identifies herself as a lesbian complaining about how men don't make enough money anymore to support their wives and kids.

i couldn't stop reading the bit of the first post as "already well off white" women

As for feminism, classic of course. Obviously, as with any political movements, there have been some dubious strands in it, but mostly I think those who are sceptical of feminism have fallen for the bra-burning men-hater stereotype, which is really just counter-propaganda and has little to do with feminists of today. I can't see why anyone except very conservative women and men fearing the loss of their male privilege would call it dud in general.

My main "problem" with (ultra) feminism (or rather my inability to fully attach myself to it) is that it is always about some Utopia, some distant place and time which seems so unreachable. It's very hard to piss 'n' moan about the current state all the time, to confront people with this fact. I stopped doing this not because it's futile to fight, but because I realize that you have to be somewhat "content" now. It must be such a sad place if you're constantly angry all the time, constantly trying to go forward, without being able to enjoy the here 'n' now. So, no, I haven't really given up, instead I'm a moderate feminist.

Also, I don't find I can attach myself without knowing the full history. It's like talk about capitalism. Now I just ask my husband (who studied Political & Social Sciences).Most of the time I am left even more confounded and don't know what to choose.

I need to finish the second half of Judith Butler's book. I gave up. :-( I'm also reading Foucault's history of sexuality. Pretty good but he comes across as somewhat of a twat.

Now I just ask my husband (who studied Political & Social Sciences).Most of the time I am left even more confounded and don't know what to choose.

don't ask your husband he's only trying to brainwash you with his male-centric doctrine do you see!! :)

my problem is also that i always fall for the bra-burning man-hater type

Like much of the taradiddle procreated by the so-called social revolutions of the 60s, feminism’s major contribution to the public discourse has been the widening of the sphere of the unspeakable (as opposed to the sphere of the undoable). If only for that reason, it ought to merit everlasting dud status. But there is also how it has contributed to the reputational meltdown of the social sciences — very many people now considering them quaint fossils, their departments being populated by an omnium gatherum of ethnic minorities, sexual deviants and angsty middle-class whiteys with penis envy (if they are “female”) or penis embarrassment (if they are “male”).

Dude, it seems you don't know much about feminism at all. Also:

feminism’s major contribution to the public discourse has been the widening of the sphere of the unspeakable (as opposed to the sphere of the undoable).

What does this even mean?

how embarrassed are you about your penis, on a scale of 1 to 10?

xpost

i'm about 4

I mean, one of feminism's major contributions is that people have started to talk about stuff that was kept quiet earlier, like domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc.

only in the way they want to talk about it

xpost Oh really? I'm not even sure anymore. I don't think it was that unspeakable before. Reading Foucault's HoS confuses me so much. The more I read, the less i seem to know. :-(

Care to expand upon that, Jeb? I'm not sure how feminism did more to bring down the Social Science Department™ than, say, right wing pundits or, god forbid, their own refusal to commingle once in a while?

And I have to echo Tuomas, I'm not even sure what the first part of your paragraph means. You seem to be painting with pretty wide strokes.

Dude, it seems you don't know much about feminism at all. Also:

“feminism’s major contribution to the public discourse has been the widening of the sphere of the unspeakable (as opposed to the sphere of the undoable).”

What does this even mean?

Grammatical errors and all. ;-)

jeb wtf are you talking about? its not "muzzling its ostensible opposition"--its shifting societal values such that opinions like "women arent good at math due to biological reasons" are no longer "mainstream."

stevie i dont think either foucault or butler is interested a "utopia" at all! in fact that would be totally counter-intuitive considering their own theoretical commitments. foucault especially is way more concerned with the day-to-day, material concerns of oppression and the mechanisms of power.

Whatever, max. What I'm really looking for is a belief system that allows me to be angry and affronted all the time. Do you recommend feminism? I heard it's good.

ban nude spock

laurel i highly recommend feminism for being a fat ugly hairy bitch

now let me really 'widen the sphere of the unspeakable': Tuomas otm

xp Awesome. Let me check with my husband and get back to you.

jeb wtf are you talking about? its not "muzzling its ostensible opposition"--its shifting societal values such that opinions like "women arent good at math due to biological reasons" are no longer "mainstream."

hey, way to revive a thread, ilx! This will be useful.

As someone once said, good job.