Feminists

gargleblaster

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Been away from the thread for a while. Just back and read this.
Sharrow, while you do make some very good points, this drivel is beneath even you. Its the most poisonous tripe that ever enters these debates and, as you like to say, 'often slips in under the radar'. Its just thrash, and doesn't belong in any intelligent debate. The only sensible retort to this is that the only reason men weren't particularly active as 'dads' for so long, was because they were out doing tough, important, challenging, pioneering, intellectual, physically demanding, gruelling, nation building, city-creating, globe-spanning jobs. Now that most of that is handled, we can return to the homestead, and let the little lassies have a few hours down the bank with their friends - balancing up, so to speak!

Generalisations are meaningless. You know this. There are as many delinquent mothers out there as there are delinquent fathers. Being in attendance does not equal parenting!

That is a very defensive overreaction to a statement of what is fairly common knowledge. It's true that there are terrible parents of both sexes, however the history of fatherly involvement with childcare hasn't been balanced by 'nation building' or any such similar yet less nonsensical reasons for several generations.

I agree with Sharrow that it's wonderful to see so-called 'women's work' becoming less stigmatised over time.

Stheno

Ms Odgeynist infracted for taking thread off topic and generalisations.

Ambersky

Panda 100 was looking for some happiness, rejoicing even at the end of the thread.
Well I dont know if this is the end of this thread, I mean you never know, but I think this project looks like the participants are having fun and celebrating feminism. Yay
For loads more images click on the link below.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59603194@N02/sets/72157626631504524/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/59603194@N02/sets/72157626631504524/

darkman2

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The OP has admitted on this very thread that they posted here because it gets more traffic

No, I just never thought of the Humanities forum - who thinks of the humanities forum

Ickle Magoo

Perhaps someone who thinks Humanities is a bit deserted?

darkman2 wrote: »

Seems fine here to me (20 pages of good discussion in fact). Humanities is a bit deserted tbh. This is almost into my top 50 most popular threads ever started.

talkinyite

This is what feminists look like:

Ani Difranco


Naomi Wolf

Morag

I still think making Feminist and Feminism a pejorative term was very clever, it divides people, and they waste time and engery on that instead of making changes happen.

The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable. Andrea Dworkin

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

I still think making Feminist and Feminism a pejorative term was very clever, it divides people, and they waste time and engery on that instead of making changes happen.

The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable. Andrea Dworkin

Hi sharrow - the division you refer to, is that a division amongst women and/or feminists, or between men and women, or just division in general?

beeftotheheels

Sharrow wrote: »

I still think making Feminist and Feminism a pejorative term was very clever, it divides people, and they waste time and engery on that instead of making changes happen.

The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable. Andrea Dworkin

I have to say I shudder every time I see Dworkin quoted. She was a deeply damaged woman deserving of compassion but when she equates being a woman with being a child or being a slave I really just want to scream.

That woman was a perfect example of why "feminist" or "feminism" could be viewed as pejorative terms, she made them so by writing angst filled books purporting to be based on fact which stand up to very little intellectual investigation, she made them so by extrapolating her own very painful life out to all other women.

Don't read Dworkin, read de Beauvoir, Greer, Faludi, Wolfe or any of a number of other wonderful feminist writers, or at least if you must read her don't cite her in support of arguments that "they" have been responsible for making feminism a pejorative term.

diddlybit

I have to agree with BeefoftheHeels on this one. Not a fan of Dworkin, especially when her concepts of oppression became entangled in her views about sex. If I had to pick someone from the sex wars to read it would definately be Pat Califia.

Links234

Judith Butler

diddlybit

Links234 wrote: »

Judith Butler

How could we forgotten?

liah

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Don't read Dworkin, read ..Greer..

Please don't.

Morag

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Don't read Dworkin, read de Beauvoir, Greer, Faludi, Wolfe or any of a number of other wonderful feminist writers, or at least if you must read her don't cite her in support of arguments that "they" have been responsible for making feminism a pejorative term.

Do read them, read them all, just don't fall into the trap of expecting them to be prefect, they are humans and flawed and so in parts at time their writing will be flawed, but read it all anyway and learn why you disagree with them.

Don't expect things which were written 50/60/40 years ago not to have dated, don't expect the world and attitudes not to have changed,
do note where things have not changed, and that is were it is really helpful.

Male writers/philosophers who are flawed are accepted a caveat added but too often with female writers/philosophers this doesn't happen and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

beeftotheheels

Sharrow wrote: »

Do read them, read them all, just don't fall into the trap of expecting them to be prefect, they are humans and flawed and so in parts at time their writing will be flawed, but read it all anyway and learn why you disagree with them.

Don't expect things which were written 50/60/40 years ago not to have dated, don't expect the world and attitudes not to have changed,
do note where things have not changed, and that is were it is really helpful.

Male writers/philosophers who are flawed are accepted a caveat added but too often with female writers/philosophers this doesn't happen and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

I accept and expect all authors to be flawed. I accept and expect that the passing of time will impact on our analysis of any particular author and their positions.

My problem with Dworkin is nothing to do with the passage of time, and is all down to the scale of the flaws in her arguments. She has some interesting and valid commentary but to me it is lost in the pages upon pages of intellectual dishonesty which pervades her work, more so to my mind than many of the others.

Now this is in and of itself interesting because if we read her commentary in the context of her life I think it serves to further the arguments about the impact of abuse on women, but too much of her writing lends itself to the rebuttable presumption that all heterosexual sexual activity is abusive, rather than concentrating on the abuse where it does exist (on which her personal background gave her a perspective that many women lack, and on which topic, when she confined herself to that topic, I found her works incredibly interesting).

I would go so far as to question whether much of her writing facilitates the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater because she chose to extrapolate up from abuse without making adequate allowances.

Mallei

Sharrow wrote: »

Male writers/philosophers who are flawed are accepted a caveat added but too often with female writers/philosophers this doesn't happen and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

This is so true as to be unreal. Male writers/philosophers who have some gigantic flaws in their psyche or writing are accepted with a "but he was a bit..." or even glossed over completely. Some of the most misogynistic writers in history have had that misogyny relegated to a footnote on their works, which are lauded.

Yet when a female writer/philosopher shows so much as a tiny character flaw or error in her writing, her entire work is dismissed and ignored.

I've often wondered why this was the case. Is it that the Patriarchy is so horribly threatened by intelligent women fighting their case, to the extent that it tries to discredit them by any means necessary?

Ms.Odgeynist

Mallei wrote: »

This is so true as to be unreal. Male writers/philosophers who have some gigantic flaws in their psyche or writing are accepted with a "but he was a bit..." or even glossed over completely. Some of the most misogynistic writers in history have had that misogyny relegated to a footnote on their works, which are lauded.

Yet when a female writer/philosopher shows so much as a tiny character flaw or error in her writing, her entire work is dismissed and ignored.

I've often wondered why this was the case. Is it that the Patriarchy is so horribly threatened by intelligent women fighting their case, to the extent that it tries to discredit them by any means necessary?

I'm not well versed in this area, but could it be that those male writers you discuss were writing about a range of topics that not include direct focus on gender roles. The female writers you mentioned were writing primarily about women's position in the world/society.
If one's bias is directly related to the topic you are writing about, then it stands to reason that your work will be overlooked. If, however you are writing about one topic, and you are notoriously biased/bigoted in relation to something else, then the work at least should be acknowledged, even if one's personal position is loathsome?

Again, I don't know the male writers you are alluding to, so its just a thought.

beeftotheheels

Mallei wrote: »

This is so true as to be unreal. Male writers/philosophers who have some gigantic flaws in their psyche or writing are accepted with a "but he was a bit..." or even glossed over completely. Some of the most misogynistic writers in history have had that misogyny relegated to a footnote on their works, which are lauded.

Yet when a female writer/philosopher shows so much as a tiny character flaw or error in her writing, her entire work is dismissed and ignored.

I've often wondered why this was the case. Is it that the Patriarchy is so horribly threatened by intelligent women fighting their case, to the extent that it tries to discredit them by any means necessary?

While I think that this is a gross generalization (I would never consign Hemingway's misogyny to a footnote, I only read his books if I'm in a masochistic mood and want to annoy myself/ throw the book on the floor) I think in part the issue is as follows and applies equally to women in the world as it does to authorship and scholarly work.

I think a lot of the issue is that women tend to express themselves in more emotive terms. Society, used to a male bias, equates displays of emotion with weakness. So when leading feminists get into an intellectual debate with each other it is easier for the press to paint it as a "cat fight" than it would be if two male philosophers engaged in the same dispute. When Joan Burton loses her cool with VB it "proves" that she is not really able for the pressure.

How we change this I don't know, I know that I myself at work would view emotional outbursts by female colleagues as a sign of weakness which I can then use to rationalize why there are fewer women in positions of power.

But if I step back I realize that at least part of the issue is that I am judging female reactions by reference to male standards.

I guess I just hope that those standards will adjust over time, but if, in order to succeed in traditionally male dominated environments, women comply with the male standards then they don't actually reset the standards in favor of women.

One of the reason I think that this is more acute in the world of feminism is that leading feminists don't feel obliged to comply with male standards and for want of a better phrase "fight like girls" which should be supported, but is not.

I'm coming around to the idea of quotas for this very reason.

ps I stand by my criticism of Dworkin, which is no evidence that I wouldn't have criticized a male author had one been cited instead. Intellectual dishonesty is to be criticized regardless of the gender of its exponent.

twinQuins

Mallei wrote: »

[...]the Patriarchy[...]

Could someone explain this? I don't hear the term that often but when I do it's couched among some... well, conspiracy theory sounding language (along with the implication that men, at large, are working to keep women oppressed) and, as here, only really comes up in discussions of feminism.

I've not said anything before because, as I've said, I don't see the term being used very often but certainly I would hope this isn't - well I don't believe as yet that it is - a view held by a majority of women.

Nhead

Sharrow wrote: »

Do read them, read them all, just don't fall into the trap of expecting them to be prefect, they are humans and flawed and so in parts at time their writing will be flawed, but read it all anyway and learn why you disagree with them.

Don't expect things which were written 50/60/40 years ago not to have dated, don't expect the world and attitudes not to have changed,
do note where things have not changed, and that is were it is really helpful.

Male writers/philosophers who are flawed are accepted a caveat added but too often with female writers/philosophers this doesn't happen and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

The great thing about Feminism as a critical theory is it challanges these assumptions of male writers/philosophers, indeed it challanges a readers assumptions as a whole. Recently on Boards people, both male and female, are debating the relevence/merits of feminism and some say that it is narrow in focus or that it should focus on human rights rather than womens rights. But feminism, as a critical theory looks at all the other theories be they marxism, new historicism or psychoanalysis helping people understand them in their traditional way but also making us see them in a new way this,to me, illustrates that feminism isn't narrow in its outlook. Feminism IMO is as relevent now as it was at any time in our history because it shines a light on assumptions and challanges what has often been presented as the norm. Writers such as Showalter, Simone de Beauvoir, Butler and Wolf are vital writers/thinkers/philosophers on the way patriarchy functions and the way in which women suffer under such a system. I hope some of the above makes sense and sorry for rambling!!!

Links234

twinQuins wrote: »

Could someone explain this? I don't hear the term that often but when I do it's couched among some... well, conspiracy theory sounding language (along with the implication that men, at large, are working to keep women oppressed) and, as here, only really comes up in discussions of feminism.

I've not said anything before because, as I've said, I don't see the term being used very often but certainly I would hope this isn't - well I don't believe as yet that it is - a view held by a majority of women.

I think it's easy to take the wrong end of the stick when someone says "the patriarchy" and get the implication you've taken away from it, but it's not about men collectively and intentionally keeping women oppressed or having a conspiracy to that end, it's more a case of the status quo in regards to society, and how things can be stacked in favor of men. And it's this status quo that is upheld, most probably not in a conscious way, but because it remains unquestioned, just because that's how things were done before and how it's still done. So I would say we do live in a very patriarchal society, but that doesn't mean to say that I think all men are in on a conspiracy to keep women down.

gargleblaster

This is a good link if you're interested in an extensive explanation.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Micky Dolenz

Was watching the Queen there and our President and it is interesting that both heads of state are women, and have been for some time. This can only be encouraging for women's rights across Britian and Ireland.

TaraFoxglove

Well, the Queen only became head of state because there was no male heir.

Morgase

I find it more interesting that the leaders of both Britain and Ireland are male, and excepting Thatcher always have been male. The queen and president are figureheads and not much else.

Micky Dolenz

Morgase wrote: »

I find it more interesting that the leaders of both Britain and Ireland are male, and excepting Thatcher always have been male. The queen and president are figureheads and not much else.

Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese may beg to differ.

What a negative way to view the good work these Ambassadors have done and how they used their influence for the greater good.

TaraFoxglove

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese may beg to differ.

Tis true though, they are just figureheads.

Count Duckula

Morgase wrote: »

I find it more interesting that the leaders of both Britain and Ireland are male, and excepting Thatcher always have been male. The queen and president are figureheads and not much else.

With the G20 nations, only four out of the twenty have female heads of state (Germany, Australia, Brazil and Argentina). Within that, the Argentine head of state was elected only because her husband had served all of his terms and was still exceedingly popular - until he dropped down dead about a year ago. She's finally making her mark now.

But that's still fewer than a quarter of the heads of state being of a gender that represents more than half of the world's population. On the one hand it's advancement, because twenty years ago you'd have had one female head of state (Thatcher), but at the same time it highlights just how far we have to go.

Also, Margaret Thatcher was villified by the British press for being a woman, and in particular being a woman displaying "male" characteristics (ie, the ability to lead). Where a man would have been lauded for his strong style of leadership, Thatcher was called a "ballbreaker". The list goes on... for every aspect of her personality that would have been either ignored or praised in a man, she was torn apart. But of course, if she had displayed traditionally feminine facets to her personality, she would have been told she was utterly unsuitable to lead.

15% of Irish TDs are women. 20% of British MPs are women. I'd say that regardless of the gender of a figurehead that's a pretty shocking statistic.

Micky Dolenz

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Tis true though, they are just figureheads.

I find that truly dismissive of the Presidential office.

Mary Robinson used it as a platform to become United Nations high commissioner of Human rights and then went on to start The Council of Women world leaders. Amongst other things. Mary Robinson to me, is the ultimate feminist and her work on human rights is quite breath taking.

Both Marys had done a lot of good work to even be considered to be nominated for the President , however about getting the position.

TaraFoxglove

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I find that truly dismissive of the Presidential office.

It's not, they actually have very little power. They are not law-makers.