BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Feminism 101

  
  

Page: 1 ... 2122232425(26)2728293031... 34

 
 
This Sunday
12:39 / 25.04.07
I'm not saying the goals of feminism, or at least, some feminism are over. Not at all. I'm just saying I can't get behind the banner of feminism, primarily because I think it's too big to be pared down, without the paring there's too much I disagree with or dislike to be giving any blanket support.

And I think names for movements are inherently dangerous, as they are useful.

Is equality, in terms of representation or treatment or whatever achieved on any front at this point? No. Should it be and should we all be working towards that? Yes. Is allying with the enemy or factions moving in directions inevitably opposing each of our own necessary... short-term, perhaps, so long as everyone's honest about it, but when everyone's not honest about it... It's like saying as Christians believe in the same tenets and system. They clearly don't, and, in my opinion, feminism's a bit bigger than Christianity. It's big enough to basically absorb everything and anything (anybody have the current percentages for the planetary pop. male and female?), same as a straightforward masculinism would likely do.

I do think the time for divisive groups based on anything other than agreement of basic tenets, is probably as good as over, in terms of usefulness. Calling feminism, feminism, is setting up a dichotomy that is at oppositions with the goals most of us agree on as feminist.

And I invoked Dworkin for the same reason I namechecked Peltier. They're good bogeymen if you're going to be against the movement as a whole, regardless whether the movement is a whole anyway. And they're good figures to unite under, if you're inclined to look at parts of what they've done or said. Dworkin did some things that were very good and useful in the name of feminism (theories on the possessiveness of sexual behaviour being unnecessary and excused in men as men being men, or her ruminations on the individual responsiblity to recognize the erotic or sensual - though perhaps not sexual - nature of perception, and how fucked up culturally we humans because of how much we take in and label as sexual and then pretend isn't) and some very not-useful things, such as defaulting on occasion to a position where men were sort of an inevitable problem rather than sharing the same planet and part of the same species and all that and the whole drug-running thing.

I agree with a lot of her ideas and share a lot of Dworkin's questions, as well, but it doesn't mean I'd ever give her full support. To be politically efficient, this is what we do, we give support to people or ideologies we only half-believe or partially desire similar ends with, but I'm not interested in being politically efficient. I could have gone for bell hooks or Toril Moi or Barbara Bush, I suppose. But my disagreements with bell hooks wouldn't have been primarily sex-based, my disagreements with Barbara Bush would have outweighed anything I felt I agreed with... it wouldn't have been as clear a case of being someone I agree with in part and disagree with in part, and therefore wouldn prefer to be agreeing with them or united with them only under very specific grounds.

I don't think there are very specific grounds for feminism, as much as I treat it as a branch of the civil rights movement, which is of course on-going and unfinished. Because I don't think people like Brownmiller and Rita Mae Brown and bell hooks are even sharing the same centric concerns when they talk about feminism. And I definitely skew towards the latter two, without being really willing to say that Brownmiller's not talking about 'real feminism' or anything like that. Nor do I agree with Brown and the whole fox-hunting thing.

Wasn't trying to demonize anyone and I apologize if it came off that way.
 
 
This Sunday
12:44 / 25.04.07
big and powerful wasn't really what I meant. The concern or impetus is big. Bigger than any one government? Yes. More powerful than any one government? Potentially, yes, just like any movement or concern of people. Functionally? No. I meant it's a bigger concern, just as I think world-hunger, or racism are bigger concerns than say, the United States government.

I didn't really make the numbers=power connection right off, and I apologize for that. Definitely means something different to look at it that way.
 
 
Ticker
12:58 / 25.04.07
I believe I grok what DD is saying.

You use the united front, the focus, as long as it remains a strength to getting the job, the specific job, done. Usually, this job is simply recognition or consideration. But holding onto it, I mean it really does start to breed a divisiveness of its own, doesn't it? Because the union becomes a bit separatist as it goes along, because to feel united, most of the time, means to start excluding. And separatism gets ugly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I'm reading the posts so far is about the idea of what kind of constructive struggle is happening and where that 'front' (or those fronts) are.
Rather than having the effort be specificly on feminism as defined as the pursuit of women's equality the evolution of the struggle has become the larger identity issue. As the gendered container 'women' itself is now in question it seems reasonable to ask if feminism by carrying that direct agenda is now self limited by it. Old tools being used for a new job.

My response to this question is that sadly the container of 'women' has not be successfully dismantled enough in the larger culture and therefore what does seem like an archaic struggle is still happening. While for many of us the new front is over the oppression of all in the system there is still what looks like a land war in Asia happening in the form of the oppression of women.

Yet I understand the desire to address some of the fallout from that conflict. I recently sat through a lecture in which a female-iding person in a position of authority announced she was not a feminist because feminism was anti-family and anti-male, therefore she considered herself a humanist.

I had called out this exact statement as a pet peeve of mine to my companion not 24 hours earlier over lunch. It is that common and it always makes me want to count to 10 and explain to people that feminism is humanism addressing a very specific area of oppression. IMO one cannot be a humanist without also being a feminist in this current era.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:02 / 25.04.07
They clearly don't, and, in my opinion, feminism's a bit bigger than Christianity. It's big enough to basically absorb everything and anything (anybody have the current percentages for the planetary pop. male and female?), same as a straightforward masculinism would likely do.

Are you suggesting that every woman on the planet automatically counts as a feminist?

I don't think there are very specific grounds for feminism, as much as I treat it as a branch of the civil rights movement, which is of course on-going and unfinished.

Could you expand on this please? As far as I can see there are numerous grounds for feminism to continue as a civil rights movement.
 
 
Ex
13:04 / 25.04.07
But holding onto it, I mean it really does start to breed a divisiveness of its own, doesn't it?

But who gets to choose when any given movement has to change focus? I see feminism continuing to be useful to a truckload of people - male and female.

Feminism's so big, so encompassing, because basically, culturally, we do have a tendency to lump everything done by, considered by, or involving women to be feminism. Which, is silly and unnecessary and belittling.

This seems to be more a problem of communication than a fault in feminism.

The point of uniting is that we, as a group make ourselves little or limit ourselves to a qualifier, for the sake of being a compact instrument, but that belittling, willed or reflexive, is in the end not the best route and self-damaging.

Of course we 'limit' ourselves when we chose an area to investigate or an issue around which to organise, but to act is to limit oneself to that particular act. When I wake up in the morning, the day is infinite, and when I pick up a pen, the blank page is infinite. But if I actually want to get anything achieved or written, I have to choose what I want to do.

The point about 'limiting' oneself to one particular field of activism, or one intellectual investigation, is that you then achieve or find something that will liberate people from limits imposed externally. You focus so that people in the future won't have to (or, if you're lucky, so you won't have to). If the feminists of the 1970s had said 'We see ourselves more as humanists - we're not going to look at gendered economic inequality, gendered unfair legislation and other topics that effect women because that would be far too narrow a focus.' then quite simply, I wouldn't be me. I wouldn't be the splendid product of the securities in which I grew up.
I am really not sure what you're advocating, if you think that to investigate the impact of race, ethnicity or gender on any given situation is inherently limiting and a false trail. I don't even know if you are saying that.

I think I still don't really understand whether you want the feminist mvement to disband or focus, or do both. You seem to downplay the diversity of feminism, then accuse it of being too limited and narrowly focussed. Then point out that it's too large and diverse to make any sense, but also reject any chance of it becoming more coherent, because it's based around an identity. I'm sorry, but what is it that you want? What kind of social movement or intellectual tradition would you like to see develop? In short, if we get rid of feminism as a term, where do we go from here?

If you want a 'third way' of achieving some of the things that feminism attempted without it being tied to an identity label, then it already exists. People like Ricky Wilchins are trying to combat injustices of gender and sexuality without shoring up gender essentialism, or polarising identities.
However, I think if you approached Wilchins and said 'feminism - you know, it's limiting and narrow-focused and haven't we got beyond all that?' I doubt she'd give you a biscuit. These are things which have - to a varying extent - grown out of feminism in the sense of being rooted in it as well as believing themselves to have grown beyond it.

I know some very sincere and intelligent people who don't identify as feminists because they feel it to be too narrow a focus. I know a lot more people who don't identify as feminists because they have been cowed into avoiding the term through mockery, a bad rep, and a false universalism that pretends that any interest in a disadvantaged group is outdated, divisive or patronising.

Your examples were a little confusing to me. You mention:
the search for essential femininity
(- is this cultural feminism, or a more spiritual thing? I'd say both are a very small facet of feminism, and 'essential femininity' is exactly what many branches of feminism are trying to get away from.)

the mad woman in the attic easter egg hunts
I'm assuming this is Gilbert and Gubar's literary criticism from the 1970s - feminist lit crit moved on a long way from that, too, but I'd say it was an interesting and useful study to kick off with. The 'madwoman' bit is less of a celebration, more of an observation about how Victorian gendered ideals lead to some weird splits between the characters in women's fiction. It's also a small part of the overall work, but I suppose it made a snappy title.

Dworkin's drug charges - if this is a reference to Dworkin's claim to have been drugged and sexually assualted - I don't really know what your point is about it. You wouldn't want to appear to endorse them? That raises a lot of questions, but I don't think that specifically believing Dworkin is central to feminism's coherence.

So you're saying you don't support these three things - well, fair enough. But how far does this render feminism as a whole less useful? Why, if you don't want to 'back' any of these three things, can other aspects of feminism not be useful to you? I doubt there are any absolutely ideologically 'pure' ideological umbrella terms with which you, or I, or most people would give their name to without question. Unless it's a system of thought that I myself had entirely invented and which had no other followers, of course I can't do that. I don't think that makes feminism invalid - it just makes it like every other ideological school, political movement etc.

I could point at point at various points in history and say 'Here is where false essentialism limited feminism' or 'Here it could have made some useful allies but missed its shot because it was focused on gender rather than seeing interlocking oppressions'. Have you any similar moments in mind? Ira Einhorn and Leonard Peltier aren't (as far as I know) feminists. It's good and productive to sometimes look to other organisations to see how pitfalls can be avoided, but it's not really a discussion about feminism.

So, basically, I share some of your feelings about binaries, identities, labels, the impossibility of backing any cause absolutely, the importance of not becoming isolated in a political cause. But I'm still a feminist. What would you propose instead?
 
 
Ex
13:05 / 25.04.07
That cross-posted with you - I'll come back, sorry if some of it has already been answered.
 
 
This Sunday
13:25 / 25.04.07
Briefly unpacking:

All women may not be considered feminists, however, the 'feminist concern' or issue of the existence and the nature and relation of things to that existence of women, is quite significant, I'm sure to all women, if only on a personal level. Similarly, it's a concern to all men, if only on a personal level. In the same way that racism (in its myriad forms and interesting definitions) effects and thereby is, as a concern, the territory of all people on the planet.

What I consider to be the essential factor or drive of feminism is part of general civil rights and the attempt to promote an equal standing of all people as people. That hasn't climaxed yet, because, well, people are not treated equally. Individually or by classification.

It's the classification part I think I've got the problem with. It's not a matter of my thinking that feminism reached its end-goals, it's that I don't think feminism can reach its end goals. Except, that's not a very good way of explaining, is it? It's sort of a Communism stops communism, Catholicism stops things from being catholic, or being part of a racially-united faction eventually deters a racial unity or equality. Being a real NDN versus an apple, or white or black, and I know race isn't the best comparison, nor is politics, but that's because there isn't a very good comparison model. Their just models, metaphors, or parallels at that point and not meant to entirely map onto each other. But, really, I'm simultaneously amused and horrified by the number of well-positioned, well-known people who hide their Native blood here in the States, unless they're with a bunch of other Indians. To everybody else, they're black or white or even possibly mixed between those two. A friend of mine just had the company she works for encourage her to mark down either anglo or asian but not to check both because it was confusing their filing and diversity-requirements.

And then you end up with the Lavender Menace, y'know? Yay, Lavender Menace!

That doesn't make any sense, does it? I'm just trying to get at the notion that the self-limiting isn't conducive to the end goals it appears to assist. Of course you can be a humanist and a feminist, and probably ought to be both, but there seems to be a lot of dissecting and worrying about concerns that to me, are made intangible and unnecessary by dissecting and worrying about the things that keep those first concerns in place and cohesive.

Also, 'Mad Woman in the Attic' as a bit of a potshot, and kinda low. Still, worst part of that book, and a most artificial and strained way to filter the literatures examined.

More, possibly, after some sleep.
Although, since I basically agree with everybody and think you're on the ball, there might not be a great deal of point to me dragging it out.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:38 / 25.04.07
That doesn't make any sense, does it? I'm just trying to get at the notion that the self-limiting isn't conducive to the end goals it appears to assist.

I think this may be key. You have not, as far as I can see, at any point made a convincing case for how or why feminism is "self-limiting" - you just keep saying it _is_, and then proceeding as if that had been agreed. I think it would be worth looking at Ex's posts in greater detail, but in particular for the process of this inquiry this section:

Of course we 'limit' ourselves when we chose an area to investigate or an issue around which to organise, but to act is to limit oneself to that particular act. When I wake up in the morning, the day is infinite, and when I pick up a pen, the blank page is infinite. But if I actually want to get anything achieved or written, I have to choose what I want to do.

The point about 'limiting' oneself to one particular field of activism, or one intellectual investigation, is that you then achieve or find something that will liberate people from limits imposed externally. You focus so that people in the future won't have to (or, if you're lucky, so you won't have to). If the feminists of the 1970s had said 'We see ourselves more as humanists - we're not going to look at gendered economic inequality, gendered unfair legislation and other topics that effect women because that would be far too narrow a focus.' then quite simply, I wouldn't be me. I wouldn't be the splendid product of the securities in which I grew up.
I am really not sure what you're advocating, if you think that to investigate the impact of race, ethnicity or gender on any given situation is inherently limiting and a false trail. I don't even know if you are saying that.


I think I still don't really understand whether you want the feminist mvement to disband or focus, or do both. You seem to downplay the diversity of feminism, then accuse it of being too limited and narrowly focussed. Then point out that it's too large and diverse to make any sense, but also reject any chance of it becoming more coherent, because it's based around an identity. I'm sorry, but what is it that you want? What kind of social movement or intellectual tradition would you like to see develop? In short, if we get rid of feminism as a term, where do we go from here?
 
 
Ex
13:49 / 25.04.07
I've just remembered Judith Butler's splendid thing about appearing under a set of terms she wants to contest - in other words, wangling an article into a book subtitled 'lesbian theories' and then anouncing she doesn't think 'lesbian' makes any sense as a coherent self-evident term to base 'theory' on. I like to picture her cracking her knuckles as she does so, it's a bravado move.

And most really interesting writers and activists have been contesting the terms under which they 'appear', recently. If you take on a project about X, and don't do a decent bit of digging at what might actually be meant by X, or if you can think about X at all, then you could easily be doing X a bit of a disservice.

Which is why the idea that feminism is limiting itself didn't ring true to me - people often deliberately destabilise it as a concept, these days, even while they're using it to reach a higher shelf.
 
 
Papess
14:14 / 25.04.07
Of course you can be a humanist and a feminist, and probably ought to be both, but there seems to be a lot of dissecting and worrying about concerns that to me, are made intangible and unnecessary by dissecting and worrying about the things that keep those first concerns in place and cohesive.

And until there is no more exploitation of one gender by another gender, and governments worldwide adopt feminist (thus, humanist) principles, without causing further exploitation to anyone, then and only then, will feminism have served it's purpose. I do not believe that removing that label from play is going to clarify the issue of sexism and misogyny.

To blanket over the specific groups involved with a "humanist" label, seems a bit premature. Until a firm foundation is set globally to correct sexism, using a blanket term such as "humanism", and adopting a gender-neutral approach (as I am understanding your posts), will obscure the issues until it is actually sorted out for good. You know, hopefully...

I really like the idea of being both a feminist and a humanist. Although, the more I learn of feminism, I am inclined to believe, that's what they meant, anyway.
 
 
Papess
14:16 / 25.04.07
...will feminism have served it's purpose.

In those areas, at least. I feel this is a far-reaching statement, on my part.
 
 
This Sunday
16:04 / 25.04.07
Right, mildly rested (and unable to sleep for the hammering on the roof) now. And having reread quite a bit of the thread, before and after I chimed in, I want to address/clarify a few things.

Ex has been terribly helpful in this whole thing - everyone has, but Ex, perhaps unintentionally, led me to see where I was going a bit off from the general line.

Which is why the idea that feminism is limiting itself didn't ring true to me - people often deliberately destabilise it as a concept, these days, even while they're using it to reach a higher shelf.

I think Ex just summed, there, what I'd like to see these things used for. It's like a big toolbox, right, humanism or extropy or civilisation, whatever you want to call it, and in that toolbox there's a variety of tools, that are specific to certain uses, good for certain jobs, so you have the gender equality hammer, or the cultural-appropriation question screwdriver but your not a hammerist or a monkey wrenchist.

Again, I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anyone else's 'this is how it is' or 'should be' necessarily, I'm just valuing a different part of it. And I don't want to come off as implying anyone else should have to put the tool away, right now this minute. I'm not comfortable swinging the hammer about, for a variety of reasons, but I'm not comfortable signing away to a political party or putting my name on the roster for a specific church, either. Even if I support the bulk of what that group is doing, or vocally support and agree with particular individuals who do associate with or belong to that group.

But, if feminism is going to be a tool, a short-term tool, it's got to be really tight and focused and limited. And then put down for another tool when another tool is needed. At least, for me, that's what's necessary. That's why I have a difficult time taking on the term, or using it because, well, it's a very loaded term and I really do think it's used as a blanket term for way more than it's actually beneficial for. Most of that's coming from my Lit/Crit background, unfortunately, which does have a tendency to taint the way I take things. I end up having to take it on faith that if someone says X is feminist, it's feminist. If they say it's Black Lit or Gay Lit, or Asian, Lesbian, or Angry Young Republican Eunuch Theory/Ideology, I can't willingly say it's not. Even if it doesn't measure up to my definition of what those things should be, I have a really hard time trying pretend an authority enough to be exclusionary. Harold Bloom or Barbara Bush may consider themselves, and have identified themselves before as, real feminists, and while I don't agree with their ideas in many ways, I'm not going to say they can't be feminists if that's what they think it means. I'm not going to say Deleuze and Guattari aren't really postcolonial and believe themselves to be being helpful when they get off on their mongrel literature kick, no matter how much I disagree with the sentiment and feel it's antithetical to the school and situation of real human beings.

Self-limiting for effect is useful, but it does give other people a way to dismiss, and prolonged self-limitation gives those people an even stronger capacity/excuse to dismiss. Changing tools continuously or occasionally makes it harder for folks to keep the blinders on, or the filters at the right angle to block out X.

But to be clear, to simplify enough to be specific, we often have to start excluding people from the party. Last night someone told me they didn't think of Deborah Eisenberg as feminist, but 'more about the city.' Because New York hasn't got women, was my initial mental response, and then I thought, y'know, maybe she hasn't got a great interest in the aspect of her work that ostensibly has to do with women. I may think of her work as having feminist relevance, but it doesn't maker her a feminist. Only Eisenberg saying she was, would do that. And nobody saying 'No, I don't think so,' should be able to stop that. A thought which struck me, as I had it, as both very empowering but also making it very difficult for me to ally with a classification, then.

I know a lot of young writers and artists who really would rather not approach a message style, or edutainment (the flipside being people who think they've invented a school of thought or are the first to try to say anything). Sometimes that's ignorance about previous people's struggles or work, or ignorance of the machinations of current society and how power systems operate, but sometimes, it's just that things have gotten old and a new method, even if nobody knows what the new method should be, should at least be considered. People do it themselves. Look at Amiri Baraka of thirty years ago, and Amiri of ten years ago. Ann Waldman today and Ann Waldman when, say, she first started up at Naropa. Whereas other people grow a bit septic, instead. It goes both ways, I just like the ones who fit my model the best or something. Regardless of Huey Newton, himself, the opening up of the Black Panther Party's motivating requirements for people to all peoples was a helluva move. But I would still be uncomfortable signing on wholesale for the Huey P Newton Foundation as I would the Black Panthers. But I wouldn't want to stand out front of a building and force other people to not join whatever it is they want to, even if it were something I would go out and actively oppose.

That's got to make more sense. I hope.
 
 
*
20:31 / 25.04.07
Crucial to exploring new directions for a movement is understanding through experience what the old ones were.

I really appreciate the effort you've put into exploring this topic and making yourself heard. You're not the only one with justifiable criticisms of feminism who wants to distance yourself from the term—look into the womanism and radical women of color movements for examples. It's just that for the reasons others have already pointed out, you sound as if you don't have a lot of first-hand experience practicing gender-equality work, so when you say "I can't get behind feminism" it's going to sound a lot different from when a woman who has been disenfranchised from mainstream feminism, despite her lifelong struggles against gender oppression, says "I can't get behind feminism".
 
 
This Sunday
20:49 / 25.04.07
Well, sure, it's a different thing coming from a man or a woman. Hence the note about Deleuze and Guattari and postcolonialism. They aren't particularly put upon or in the same situation as actively colonized folks who're a few generations under reign and then, ostensibly freed up in that context, but they still offered (before one of them dying) suggestions. I don't like the notions they brought up, but I'm not discounting them because it was two European white fairly well-monied fellows who came up with them. And no one's doing that to me, either, which is nice.

You do say, idperfections, you sound as if you don't have a lot of first-hand experience practicing gender-equality work and I'm wondering if you'd be so kind as to lay that one out for me. In a pm if you like, so as not to clutter the thread (I'm doing enough of that, I think).

I'm steering clear of whether or not men have got 'gender oppression issues' at all. Or, whether oppression's oppression. There's better-suited threads for those, but I'd be lying if I said such things weren't a filter for how I think about a particular type of oppression.

I'm actually really glad to see people whom are comfortable with operating as feminists, or for whom the model and title still have lots of good use and hope. I'm not really as set in ways as I fear some of this might read, and really did want to hear how people were working with the material and concerns.

Ex's given me some new avenues to look into, Justrix was actually very helpful in helping me see where I wasn't communicating all that well, and everyone's been pretty good for the car can still go a few more miles, don't start hitching yet if you see what I mean. I do think I'm not likely to lose some of the perspective too soon, just because it is working for me, and I've never been any good at ditching perspectives unless they stop working.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:19 / 29.04.07
you sound as if you don't have a lot of first-hand experience practicing gender-equality work

I can't speak for idperfections, of course, but I have to say that you come off that way to me, too. I'm very happy to be corrected on that impression, but your manner of discourse on the topic of feminsm strikes me as very theoretical, very abstracted, and does not convey a sense of the viceral engagement that one encounters in writing by people who are directly involved in such work, even if they have ended up coming to a place where "feminism" was inadequate or no longer meaningful as a concept or a movement. Of course it may simply be that you are better at detatching yourself emotionally than I am.

I honestly don't want to come off as hostile and I genuinely appreciate all the time and effort you've put in to your posts here. You've striven very hard to communicate in a respectful and open-handed manner, and I would like to honour that.

However, as someone who's experienced a considerable amount of gendered prejudice in her life, I actually found some of what you wrote quite hard to read, almost painful. At times I even found myself wondering--quite unfairly--if you'd read the rest of the topic.

Personally I have to say that my own brand of feminism is entirely rooted in humanism--it comes from a place of deep compassion for men as well as for women. If I were suddenly transported into an alternate universe where matriarchy and male oppression were the norm, my humanism would naturally manifest as "masculinism." However, given the stark imbalance between the privileges enjoyed by men and by women in the real world, it manifests itself as feminism.

I guess what I've come away from your work here lacking is a sense of how your ideas play out in the real world. I don't have a clear picture of how you would frame the struggle for gender equality in the face of the current situation.
 
 
This Sunday
21:04 / 29.04.07
I probably shouldn't, but: My humanism wouldn't skew towards masculinism any more than feminism, regardless of the context, because it feels like, by operating under that title, or taking it on, I'm putting an emphasis on one over the other. In an analytical context or medical, perhaps there's need for this, but in a sociopolitical context, I don't feel the need to have an area of focus, necessarily, because it isn't my field. I don't have a focus on eyes or feet, because I'm not an optometrist or podiatrist. I can't support racial purity as a requirement or racial singularity as a requirement, because I'm mixed and I don't agree with some people on any side of that equation. So why would I choose to support women over men or men over women? Which is a linguistic hang-up, I realize that, but that doesn't make it any more real, and I havent' noticed my behaviour, my opinions or outlook being altered a bit by not labelling myself as a feminist or a masculinist, or even, really, a humanist, since there's a few other species I might be persuaded take priority.

I don't see the efficiency or change, except in short-term singular motions (which, may be conglomerate movements or strikes) for allying under a banner that's name is skewed in one direction or another, unless that direction is the one everyone's going into. I like quite a few entirely-white people, doesn't mean I'm supporting aryanism. I'm all for the government getting around to respecting the unbelievable number of treaties they keep betraying and invalidating, worldwide and right here in the States with... you know Natives are the only racial group in the states who are carded and catalogued (until recently by Fish and Wildlife) based on blood quantum? Doesn't mean I'd ever ever at all not once join a group that called itself Nativism or even the classic American Indian Movement. Bobby Seale's assertion that the Black Panther Party was not a Black Movement but a Peoples' Movement comes to mind. I might work towards similar goals, might work with some of the same people, but all movements are peoples' movements and nothing more. Nothing less, either. Because all movements concern all people, those seeking not to be abused and ignored, those doing the abusing and ignoring, and everyone who falls between.

Which is essentially what everyone agrees sensible people are doing anyway. Sensible people are going to be fine with equalities amongst many walks and types, sexual, racial, social, regardless of what the call the movement or school or ideology. So why not get the most useful name?

And now I'm definitely just reading the new materials in this thread. Despite some encouragement, I've primarily been hijacking a 101 intro thread and just (unintentionally) offending people, and probably irritating those I didn't offend.
 
 
illmatic
17:39 / 07.05.07
The Onion on feminism.

The article Women empowered by everything is so true - so many of the battles have been won!

"Shopping for shoes has emerged as a powerful means by which women assert their autonomy," Klein said. "Owning and wearing dozens of pairs of shoes is a compelling way for a woman to announce that she is strong and independent, and can shoe herself without the help of a man. She's saying, 'Look out, male-dominated world, here comes me and my shoes.'"
 
 
illmatic
14:24 / 14.05.07
Interesting paper, largely a critque of porn and third way feminism. Any thoughts?
 
 
Ticker
15:16 / 14.05.07
Holy Mother of Catses, that was a great article Apophenia! thank you!

It was to my mind the most productive critique of third wave feminism I've read, (including the issue of Waves). Rebecca Whisnant also offered the first constructive 'well WTF do we do' suggestions regarding sexuality and porn I've read.

A large part of my problem with anti-porn feminism has been around my own consumption of porn and sexuality. I found her reframing of the situation extremely helpful in understanding what I'm promoting. It also gave me some ideas for throwing the bathwater out properly.

I'm tempted to quote the article in chunks but I'd like people to JUST GO READ IT!!! It's not terribly long and is quite fantastic.
 
 
illmatic
15:25 / 14.05.07
Rebecca Whisnant also offered the first constructive 'well WTF do we do' suggestions regarding sexuality and porn I've read.

Yeah, that was what I really liked about it. I'm not widely read in third wave feminism (actually, I'm not widely read in any kind of feminism). I was somewhat surprised at the chunks she pulled out to critque - they seem quite simplistic to me, or at least they did so when read out of context.
 
 
Ticker
15:58 / 14.05.07
Um, well much of the third wave stuff I've read has positioned the power in reclaiming sexuality. The lipstick revolution, and yeah sometimes it does read as overly simplistic depending on who is writing.

As a big ol' pervert I found her article stepped up to critique what has been given a free pass by many 3rd wave folks. Just because it get's you hot and was made by consenting adults doesn't mean it isn't hurting someone else...so now what do you do? From a kink perspective that's a really difficult but needful conversation.

I was reminded as recently as last night how much of my sexuality was formed directly by exposure to porn as a youngster. While I tend to cringe a bit when people wheel out the term Patriarchy I can clearly see how sexist values were imprinted onto my perceptions. Just because those values have been grafted onto the levers of my sexuality doesn't make them somehow ok because it's *my* sexuality.

Her points about commercialism I've read else where and I do agree that a capitalist society has sold the idea of market share freedom to the masses. There really is the belief that anyone can be or accomplish anything casting an invisibility effect over the prejudices chugging along side everyday.

I sent the article to some folks I know that actively make porn and I'm curious to hear their responses to it.
 
 
grant
18:18 / 14.05.07
Hmm. I'm not sure her final three recommendations aren't already being done as (what most people would call) porn (but she would apparently call something else).

Thinking of the recent explosion in porn-networking sites (PornoTube et al) and other net-based alternative erotica (like Beautiful Agony, a site which only shows faces, and which I don't think produces any of its own material - in other words, the consumers are also the producers).

I'm catching a whiff of circular reasoning or self-fulfilling definitions around these two bits:

Also clearly in evidence here is the idea that women can enact a liberatory sexual politics by embracing either standardly feminine or standardly masculine sexual roles and activities.

This makes me ask how one would recognize an image that's neither standardly feminine or standardly masculine. I think such images are out there -- centrally featured possibly on the margins of the culture, but I suspect growing rapidly.

And I *think* that's part of what (she is calling) third-wave feminism is doing. I don't think the third-wave feminists are *only* recapitulating "standard" porn.

I may be wrong, and I'm not really in touch with the "porn mainstream" if there is such an animal.

and


For both camps, after all, it is an article of faith that sex makes women dirty, cheap, less valuable—that being fucked literally de-grades women and girls. Furthermore, in both camps, women and girls are systematically made to suffer for having sex. In the world of pornography, the sex itself—aggressive, hostile, humiliating—is the punishment, the mechanism by which men viscerally experience their manhood by putting women in our place.



"Both camps" being yer sex-is-bad social conservatives and yer sex-is-grand Larry Flynt pornographers. I don't think third-wave feminists really are embracing the Flynt model except, perhaps, as ironic role-play. Although once irony pokes its ugly head in... well, things get complicated.
 
 
Ticker
18:58 / 14.05.07
I'm hoping to hear back from some 3rd wave pornographers and perverts to see what they think.

However I'm curious about challenging the idea of making desire our own and still making it commerical. Or just taking it out of context. I'm anti censorship but I'm hearing in her article a call for such intense transformation that the end result just wouldn't work in the hurtful model. Not sure if it's possible but it is intriguing.

I remember with the movie Irreversible there was a great deal of controversy around the rape scene being taken out of context and used as porn. I didn't see the movie for various reasons but I bring it up here to ask if violence in sexual form can be easily shoved into the porn format then how difficult is it to slide the other way?

I can imagine some forms of porn that can't translate in that direction, are those the ones would fit the criteria?
 
 
Red Concrete
22:18 / 14.05.07
Thanks for the article, that was great reading. I'm not a pervert or 3rd wave pornographer, I'm just interested and hoping to eventually post over in the Lab, where I'll be more comfortable (probably because my only anecdotes are in that area). In the more general areas of feminism, women's studies, philosophy I will have to limit myself to asking questions (which I'm assured can never be foolish, but defer your judgement on that until you see mine).

Firstly, is there any link between the speaker (and/or feminism in general, or perhaps 2nd wave feminism), and critiques of capitalism and markets? They would strike me as male structures at least as much as Science and Reason are (I've yet to be convinced there, though)... Who's the person/people to read in the area?

Secondly, on the aims of feminism - is it to develop new social paradigms? To educate people (male and female) in ways that succeed in eliminating preconceptions of male dominance over females? I do understand that ideologies or social movements do not necessarily have well defined plans and methods, or even end-points, like a scientific experiment would, so maybe there's no answer. I suppose after reading that article I started to get worried that a lot of the discussion occurs in quite a small academic field of interested thinkers and writers and researchers. How is this ever going to change society?

Finally, reading all that about pornography has stirred up a lot of thoughts, including about gender psychology - innate, genetic aspects in particular. Do any branches of Feminism inform themselves from Psychology and/or Neuroscience (or even Genetics) in these areas? Are they resistant to doing so, and for what reasons?

Not being in the field makes it difficult to know what to read to get a feel for the field, and I'm under no illusions that I'll be able to get more than that. So I'd appreciate any names, books, links, etc. in these areas that anyone thinks are must-reads, or interesting, or even just a recommendation to reread this whole thread if that would be the most productive.
 
 
Ticker
23:15 / 14.05.07
RC I believe you are asking more advanced questions than this link Feminism 101 blog will handle but I'm throwing it out as it was a kick ass thing posted upstream a while back.

2nd wave feminism), and critiques of capitalism and markets?

Absolutely there is a link. I'm not coming up with a go to name but goole provided me with some very interesting links like this one

Secondly, on the aims of feminism - is it to develop new social paradigms? To educate people (male and female) in ways that succeed in eliminating preconceptions of male dominance over females? I do understand that ideologies or social movements do not necessarily have well defined plans and methods, or even end-points, like a scientific experiment would, so maybe there's no answer. I suppose after reading that article I started to get worried that a lot of the discussion occurs in quite a small academic field of interested thinkers and writers and researchers. How is this ever going to change society?

Yes the primary aim as I understand it is gender equality for all genders regardless of biological housing/plumbing.

It's very actively taught on the college campuses I'm aware of though as the article points out the varieties differ.

As I understand it society has changed drastically due to the efforts of Feminists. I have the ability to vote, work outside of the home even if married, and am entitled to own property. All of these are things women of earlier generations didn't have access to.

Finally, reading all that about pornography has stirred up a lot of thoughts, including about gender psychology - innate, genetic aspects in particular. Do any branches of Feminism inform themselves from Psychology and/or Neuroscience (or even Genetics) in these areas? Are they resistant to doing so, and for what reasons

again I googled some very interesting results
 
 
Tsuga
00:33 / 15.05.07
what those entities will produce and sell is whatever gets the most people in the gut the fastest and makes them want more of that now. This will never be equality. It will never be complexity. It will never be anything thoughtful or meaningful or reflective. Not ever.

That was some great reading. I really liked the way she addressed how the co-opting of porn archetypes can still be succumbing to them, trying to use the system against itself can only work so well when the system nearly totally works against you. At least, that's what I gathered. And the self-perpetuating through archetype of cultural sexuality and/or sexism is one of the most depressing things about pornography (perhaps "stereotype" would be more accurate?). We are all victims as much as products of our cultures (to greater or lesser extent), and while it's obvious at times, other times it's hard to even see which parts are destructive. It seems the negative stereotypic images of female sexuality in a culture, especially a media-driven culture, are in a feedback loop that is hard to extricate from. How much of our sexual attractions are attributable to the twistedness of our cultures and what is more "natural"? I feel this is true of many elements of humanity, really. Cultural animals. What a crazy development.
 
 
grant
00:56 / 15.05.07
Secondly, on the aims of feminism - is it to develop new social paradigms? To educate people (male and female) in ways that succeed in eliminating preconceptions of male dominance over females?

One of the ideas underpinning even talking about "waves" of feminism is the idea that there isn't feminism but feminisms. All are based around critiques of patriarchy, but some are Marxist, some aren't, some like porn, some don't, some get into traditional ideas of homemaker/cook/nurturer of children, and some don't.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
07:12 / 15.05.07
I'm really not sure about that article. As far as anti-porn feminism goes, it's an improvement: she at least has a sound critique of liberalism (ie, the logic that the market, or more choices, is what will fix things.) But at bottom, her argument rests on a number of assumptions. I think she's confusing 'sex' and 'porn', to the extent that she starts off by critiquing pornography, but ends by arguing that in the real world, we need ''more egalitarian ways to have sex." Of course, people could do with more egalitarian ways to have sex, but I read that as an argument that there is a possibility of sexuality without power dynamics -- power here is only viable as a collective form of resistance. And it reads to me as implicitly anti-BDSM, of any stripe.

She also skips right over the sex wars. I don't find this surprising, because pro-sex and radical sex feminists like Gayle Rubin really did offer a profound challenge to anti-porn feminists, one that wasn't based on liberal politics. But it's an omission which undoes her position as offering a reliable account of the history of feminism and porn.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:06 / 15.05.07
Can't really read that article at work, but it sounds to me as if it, or rather the wider issues involved, might deserve a Head Shop thread? Not that we haven't had some of these discussions before, but I think it's one of the most interesting and in some ways elusive areas there is to discuss...
 
 
Ticker
11:42 / 15.05.07
Of course, people could do with more egalitarian ways to have sex, but I read that as an argument that there is a possibility of sexuality without power dynamics -- power here is only viable as a collective form of resistance. And it reads to me as implicitly anti-BDSM, of any stripe.

I've been thinking a bit about what kind of BDSM would manifest in an egalitarian sexual culture. I was talking offboard about the article and someone pointed out that porn, sex, and even wanking all exist inside of cultural context. That said my prefered form of BDSM is the closest I've experienced to egalitarian sex in this sexist culture specifically because it contains langauge and tools to engage with and manipulate power dynamics.

If anything I read the article (and perhaps it is my reading and not the intent of the author as you point out) as being critical of simple inversions of the current oppressive sexual dynamics without complete deconstruction of those dynamics. Which is to say I can imagine/visualize forms of BDSM which would not appeal to either the religious conservatives or to the exploitive porn industry.

She also skips right over the sex wars. I don't find this surprising, because pro-sex and radical sex feminists like Gayle Rubin really did offer a profound challenge to anti-porn feminists, one that wasn't based on liberal politics. But it's an omission which undoes her position as offering a reliable account of the history of feminism and porn.

That's an excellent observation I'd completely overooked. Thank you.

For other people reading here's a link on Gayle Rubin
 
 
Ticker
11:47 / 15.05.07
here's another useful link on sex positive feminism

It mentions both Gayle Rubin and my fav pro sex brane, Betty Dodson.
 
 
Ticker
12:59 / 15.05.07
Has anyone read Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs?

I'm curious about the idea of 'raunch culture' versus sex positive feminist porn.
 
 
grant
13:20 / 15.05.07
I think she's confusing 'sex' and 'porn', to the extent that she starts off by critiquing pornography, but ends by arguing that in the real world, we need ''more egalitarian ways to have sex."

Yes! That's the thing!
 
 
Ticker
13:21 / 15.05.07
Ok, I'm in danger of triple post threat talking to myself but...

Still, as a consciousness-raising call to arms, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" is clearly to the good. And it raises a question that reaches far beyond the faddish popularity of the sex industry. Levy never mentions John Berger, but at times her book strongly echoes his "Ways of Seeing." Berger wrote: "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. . . . The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object." "Ways of Seeing" was published in 1972, and Berger's theory of female objectification hinged on women's historical lack of real-world power or independence: "Men survey women before treating them. Consequently how a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated." But things have changed a lot since 1972. Many women can buy their own plane tickets and pay their own rent. They can treat themselves. Why, then, do they persist in watching themselves through male eyes?

from a review of Female Chauvinist Pigs

I'd like to grab the one phrase here:

Why, then, do they persist in watching themselves through male eyes?

I think 'male eyes' is a bit too gender specific I'd like to frame it different ways and see what happens. It seems to me the question is: well what kind of eyes are we watching with?

If the pro sex feminists (as I understand them) are correct we can alter the gaze without needing to limit what they are gazing at by empowering that which is viewed. As I understand the anti porn feminists we need to alter what is available to gaze at in order to recondition the gaze itself.

I maybe being too reductionist in this presentation as it seems to me there is a feedback loop between the two things.
 
 
Ex
13:59 / 15.05.07
I think 'male eyes' is a bit too gender specific I'd like to frame it different ways and see what happens. It seems to me the question is: well what kind of eyes are we watching with?


It may seem a bit naive and utopian of me, but I too (like Bold in her Breeches, I think) felt that Levy tended to prematurely collapse things back into gender binaries when she could have held off a bit more. Not in terms of what she observed so much as her proposed way out of the current conundrum. (I vaguely suspect I've typed this on Barbelith before, but what the heck.)

She says (I paraphrase, possibly libellously) 'Women are behaving like men' when the 'like men' bit isn't really the problem - it's 'like gits and idiots' which is the issue. I know that a lot of it does come down to a big gender binary, but I don't think that trying to reimpose that binary will solve things. If women should behave like women, and want to act women - what would that look like? Who would define it? Why would it inherently be good?

My interest, and problems, were mainly with the chapter on transgender stuff, so there was a specific flavour of gender-panic - women don't want to be women any more, feminism should help them want to be women. I feel that feminism as a disipline/approach/set of tools is very well placed to observe what is associated with men and what with women in cultures. But when it prematurely decides what should be associated with men, and what with women, I feel that's a bit of a mis-step.

Still, I do appreciate new tools for trying to explore how women's sexual emancipation has been coopted, or could be best carried out, so kudos to Levy for having a hack at it.

I think Flyboy is right and this could go Headshop-wards - happy to contribute, too tired today to kick it off.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2122232425(26)2728293031... 34

 
  
Add Your Reply