Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

just to throw this out there, being involved in occupy dc has allowed me to plug into what it means to be an ally & engage in all kinds of learning through our decolonize & liberate gender WG

so like, getting involved with feminist activist circles is a really good way to engage with this stuff ime

without even having to wade through any long sentences

hmmm beginning to think wcc's idea of 'women's issues' is 'wcc's issues'

"if journalists and romance novelists rendered their work into interpretation-hostile gibberish, it would not change the essential intellectual content of that work. it would still be saying basically the same shit about roger's horse and santorum's surge. the difference is that it would become totally useless to the vast majority of people. that's the only real difference."

well tbf this is a point partially conceded by some of these ppl here

except that also the deployment of gibberish would actually be the trying-on-of-language to a concept that, if said outfit really worked, could be used to simplify things, ungibberishly.

hmmmm beginning to think that snipes about wcc's supposed self-centered "issue" are a little too ready to hand for ilxors, keep it positive ;)

Bcuz I really wanna see m bison and gbx (hasn't gbx already been posting on this thread and saying awesome stuffs or I am just drunk?) get some answers to those questions. Coz those are really really good questions to be asking. And questions I wanna see answered.

but 'careful building and clarifying of concepts' is not what medical writing tends to be about. and definitely not frequent summaries. that's ~didactic~ writing.

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:19 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

i dunno, man. medical writing usually strikes me as exceptionally clear and direct, and i know nothing about medicine. the terms may be unfamiliar, but the way information is communicated is very straightforward. the writing style you find in theory and philosophy is very, very different, imo. it's not technical. it's aggressively hostile to decoding, and it's very transparent about this.

man, this thread

^^ i feel like that post means something

I know that, like "is Butler obtuse and how can I show off my knowledge of Derrida to other ILX boys" is like fascinating to those who are showing off on this thread, but seriously, it's less "WCC issues" and more "hey, you guys have a billion other academia and philosophy threads to talk about this stuff on, and I would really like to see guys like m bison and gbx who are saying WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP?!?!? actually get some good pointers about what they can do to, you know, help.

what i was saying with the journalists/romance writers thing was that, in many ways, people who deal in ideas and communication of those ideas exist on many levels and are sorting through the same ideas but in different ways - imo you can't really judge which ways have more or less merit based on the form of communication - just because we have brilliant poetry that perfectly explains what it is to be a woman married living an unfulfilled life doesn't mean we don't need a non-fiction book based on in-the-field interviews or an academic texts that say the same thing in a different way

what i would hazard, con, is that the medical writing you're getting is like just a few levels down the rhetorical ladder from atul gawande or something. i'm talking about the ground level raw meat shit you see in journals with very funny names and very very narrow purviews

anyway

as an english major, who even took a theory course!

Critical theory didn't really permeate the English dept. of my college in the late '90s. I encountered Butler (and Foucault and Barthes et al.) while taking a cultural studies course at the British university where I studied abroad, and when I came back to the States, I enrolled in Contemporary Continental Philosophy to continue that path.

WCC, "feminist theory" is in the thread title for a reason. It's fair ground for discussion, imo.

That said, I'll repeat my suggestion to geebs & m bison: reaching out to local feminist activist groups (they often do book club stuff, have meetings, lots of material on their sites) can be really helpful.

I don't read medical journals but it's entirely possible that you could say 'they have a prob w/ poor writing too, prob for the same mix of cultural and incentive problems'

I don't know, trying to force an abrupt end to an ongoing discourse is nagl imho. As the great late 20th century philosopher George Constanza once said, "a subject matter should resolve itself based on its own momentum"

xxxxps

I think that dismissing or ignoring the questions of newbies who would like to get engaged in active change (except for Big Hoos) is also NAGL but whatevs.

eh?

An important principle here that we talk a lot about in my working group is "Step up, Step back." if you'll forgive the long excerpt:

“Step up” means that men who choose to identify as feminists (or, if you prefer, as “feminist allies” or “pro-feminists”) are called to take an active role in the anti-sexist movement. Building a genuinely egalitarian and non-violent society requires everyone’s involvement. Empowering women to defend themselves from rapists and harassers is important; raising a generation of young men to whom the idea of rape or harassment is anathema is also vital. We need men of all ages in the feminist movement to “step up” and commit themselves to embodying egalitarian principles in their private and public lives.

Stepping up means being willing to listen to women’s righteous anger. That doesn’t mean groveling on the ground in abject apology merely for having a penis — contrary to stereotype, that’s not what feminists (at least not any I’ve ever met) want. That means really hearing women, without giving into the temptation to become petulant, defensive, or hurt. It means realizing that each and every one of us is tangled in the Gordian knot of sexism, but that men and women are entangled in different ways that almost invariably cause greater suffering to the latter. Stepping up doesn’t mean denying that, as the old saying goes, The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (TPHMT). It means understanding that in feminist spaces, to focus on male suffering both suggests a false equivalence and derails the most vital anti-sexist work.

Stepping up means, of course, being willing to confront other men. I’ve said over and over again that the acid test of a man’s commitment to feminism often comes not only in terms of how he treats women, but also how he speaks about women when he’s in all-male spaces. Many young men are earnest about living out feminist principles when around women (of course, some like Amelia’s troll and the lamentable Kyle Payne obviously aren’t.) But get them around their “bros” and their words change. Or, as is more often the case, they may not join in on sexist banter — but they fail to raise vocal objection to it. Stepping up means challenging the jokes and complaints and objectifying remarks that are so much a part of the conversation in all-male spaces. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a sine qua non of being a feminist ally.

Stepping back means acknowledging that in almost every instance, feminist organizations ought to be led by women. It means that men in feminist spaces need to check themselves before they pursue leadership roles. While that might seem unfair, arguing that biological sex should have no bearing on who wields authority in a feminist organization fails to take into account the myriad ways in which the wider world discriminates against women. Even now, we still socialize young men to be assertive and young women to be deferential. (Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but not enough to disprove that rule.) Part of undoing that socialization for women means pushing themselves to take on leadership positions even if they feel awkward about doing so; part of undoing that socialization for young men means holding themselves back from those same offices.

Stepping back doesn’t mean men should never speak up in feminist spaces. Stepping back is not about silently serving in the background. Stepping back is about the willingness to engage in self-reflection, to defer, and remembering that the most important job feminist men have within the movement is not to lead women but to serve as role models to other men. Stepping back is a way of renouncing the “knight in shining armor” tendency that afflicts many young men who first come to anti-sexist work. Women need colleagues and partners on this journey, not rescuers or substitute father figures.

so with that said i'm gonna step back

what i would hazard, con, is that the medical writing you're getting is like just a few levels down the rhetorical ladder from atul gawande or something. i'm talking about the ground level raw meat shit you see in journals with very funny names and very very narrow purviews

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:33 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe, but i used to prep presentation materials for medical conferences, so i'm pretty familiar with the "raw meat" of medical writing, both figuratively and literally. what tends to make it impenetrable is either technical language or poor writing. i feel that in philosophy and crit circles, it's the product of a deliberately chosen (if perhaps unconsciously chosen) culture of obfuscation and poor writing. but that's just me, and i'm cool with letting this drop as i've said more than enough on the topic.

I understand that theory is an important part of the discussion of this thread, but I would just like to see it circle back to praxis when someone asks. If I can say that without being accused of having ~issues~.

x-post to Hoos bringing exactly the sort of thing I wanted to see, so bravo, well done hoos.

the tendency of some people (self-regarding academics) to pride themselves on their ability to wade through the oceans of gibberish to find a kernel of sense has created an institutional mania for obfuscation. the only point of the style is that it excludes and is difficult. it does not facilitate the transmission of ideas and information even to its audience. if the academic audience could easily read and understand it, they'd sneer at its simplicity.

no

oop, one more (i promise):

I don't read medical journals but it's entirely possible that you could say 'they have a prob w/ poor writing too, prob for the same mix of cultural and incentive problems'

― iatee, Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:35 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

that's not true though. medical journals are like guidebooks for mechanics. doctors and mechanics are about equally averse to obfuscation. they just want the relevant information to be delivered in an efficient, sensible, and technically precise manner. writing shit that makes people tear their hair out with the "difficulty" would guarantee that you'd never get published in most medical journals.

nice excerpt, hoos
being a true colleague and a partner to women and feminism, even if you don't quite understand it all but are willing to watch, listen and learn, is more important than reading all the books - the books (theory and otherwise) are just a part of the broader understanding obv

I second hoos. Engaging in grassroots political work really helped my actual understanding of a lot of stuff I had learned in undergrad and that both the theory and the practice is vital.

http://takebackthenighthamilton.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/being-a-male-ally-how-we-can-help/

srsly - i didn't even know how to (or if i was allowed to!) identify as a feminist until i started working in a feminist-based research organization, at which point i was like, holy shit, how could anyone NOT be a feminist!

that was right after university graduation

yeah hoos, good stuff. for me personally it's speaking up during bro time that's tricky. and I tend to consider my dudes to be pretty in tune. just sometimes someone says a thing (cf getting drinks last night with two other single guys)

moral of the story: i was a feminist allll allllong

do we need another thread for "academic/technical writing" because i have some ~opinions~ right now

That thing, about male allies challenging sexism in all male circles, and about calling out other men, when you see them engaging in sexism, that is so damn important.

Because the horrible thing is, when you are a woman, dealing with sexist men, part of their whole deal of being sexist is that they just do not listen or pay attention to women in the first place. But ironically, these sexist men will pay attention to and listen to - and model the behaviour of - other men. So when they see a man saying "uncool!" as annoying as it is that they didn't listen to the woman saying it in the first place - it does actually help stop the yuck from occurring.

^^^this is otm, and a weird involution into gender politics (or w/e) in general

(I also think academic and technical writing would make a great thread in itself - not just in relation to Butler, but broadening out to many other theorists who might be beyond the remit of this thread, but still could do with some criticism of their style.)

language obfuscates. period. what's generally called "post-structuralist" writing is ABOUT linguistic (or generally semiotic) obfuscation--using language against language. it's a rebellion against the falsely objective idea of "clear" language. try reading medieval theology sometime for a style of writing that addresses similar problems (ie, God's indescribability).

for me personally it's speaking up during bro time that's tricky. and I tend to consider my dudes to be pretty in tune. just sometimes someone says a thing (cf getting drinks last night with two other single guys)

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:50 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is hard! i find it helpful, in trying to induce the courage to respond, to imagine that the off-color comment in question was made about "women" in general or a woman i'm dating if personalizing it makes me feel appropriately angry.

the other night on FB a guy wrote on another guy's wall that a reporter who covers us (occupy dc) had shown up in his okcupid quiver, and we all had a good laugh over it. then someone asked him to link to her okc profile and he said "nahh, putting her out there like that wouldn't be very allied of me," and the conversation ended.

it helps to have a community of guys that work to hold each other accountable, is what i was getting at with that last part.

fwiw this actually seems pretty straightforward but (capricious bolding to follow)

METHODS:
Sixty mature Leghorn* type chickens were chosen and divided into three groups. The 25 chickens in group A were given a weekly dose of 3 mg/kg/week methylprednisolone acetate(1) intramuscularly(2). Four chickens in group B died after the first drug injection and were excluded from the study(3). Therefore, the remaining 21 chickens in group B were additionally given 25 mg/kg/day pentoxifylline(4) intramuscularly(5), along with the steroid medication(6) as given in group A. The ten chickens in group C were not given any injections, as they were accepted as the control group(7). After the sacrifice(8) of the animals at week 14, both femoral heads(9) were taken from each animal. The animals which died along the course of the study also underwent pathological examination(10) but were not a part of the statistical analysis.
RESULTS:
In this study, steroid induced femoral head osteonecrosis(11) has been experimentally observed in chickens after high doses of corticosteroid therapy(12). The chickens were given pentoxifylline in order to prevent the effects of steroid on bones and bone marrow. The results showed that chickens are suitable osteonecrosis models(13), and that steroid causes adipogenesis(14) and necrosis(15) in the bone marrow and the death of the subchondral bone(16).

* lol
1) what the hell is this and why didn't you say what it is and not what it's named
2) this should seem obvious, "intra," "muscularly," but it's still not layperson
3) "excluded from the study" is a meaningful statistical concept, that MIGHT have implications, but this isn't clarified
4) ok waht is it
5) there's that word again
6) so the first one is a steroid medication?
7) is this like being popular
8) my god
9) this is a kind of fish, right
10) staring contest
11) wait is this what you're suggesting is happened? is everything that you described above...this?
12) didn't realize that was especially high
13) osteonecrosis is not for sale!!!!
14) chill wave
15) death metal
16) decemberists album

omg plax if you make me reread butler by posting super-awesomely i will never forgive you >:[

Lol I have never enjoyed footnotes this much, ty gbx (also: shudder)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove, gbx, but apart from the names of the actual chemicals in the treatments, i understood every word of that medical quote? I do have a background in medical data analysis, but most of the jargon is from Latin and Greek enough to work out what it means. It's not even rocket science.

i also find you intimidatingly smart, harbl

xp - you should totally do this as a powerpoint presentation!

lol, gbx, but i had no trouble reading and understanding the general gist of that chicken study. i think the density of crit/philosophical writing is more a product of what ryan described a few posts back:

"...what's generally called "post-structuralist" writing is ABOUT linguistic (or generally semiotic) obfuscation--using language against language. it's a rebellion against the falsely objective idea of "clear" language.

by which i mean it's complete nonsense. no offense, ryan. if you're trying to smash the language-state, it makes much more sense to describe the "the falsely objective idea of 'clear' language" (hey, that was very clear and direct!) than to publish arcane gibberish for yr academic peers.

dude stop posting for a minute maybe

omg gbx <3

man, this thread

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:32 AM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^ i feel like that post means something

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:32 AM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink