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 ... 2324252627(28)2930313233... 34

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:16 / 18.05.07
DD: This is a really interesting case, because it delineates sharply some of the distinctions between culture and individual. On the plus side, there are clear signs of progress - a hundred years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a woman in good standing to go on the equivalent value of a date _without_ a chaperone. However, your turn of phrase in talking about women as seen as like children is very telling. It's relatively recently that (some) societies have emerged from treating women like children in legal terms - putting severe regulatrions on their ability to live and move unaccompanied, own property, vote, and so on. The hangover from that certainly has significant implications for how people view, and feel entitled to view, women.

However, ultimately this is a matter of choice, and if the situation is as you describe it then, for what may seem perfectly noble motives - nobility after all being a code of behaviour supporting the ruling class - your friend's chums are making a choice to behave like creepy stalkers. This, specifically is something which progress has rendered actionable. So, she can tell them that she appreciates them looking out for her, but she doesn't want them to follow her around. If there is something that would allow her to feel protected and them to feel protec_tive_ - like texting at the end of the date - then that's fine. If not, they should butt out, as the vernacular might have it.

If they do not respect her wishes, and continue not to do so after they have been made entirely clear, then they are clearly not her friends, because they are trying to make her unhappy. If they are not her friends, then they are some men following her around. That would ultimately be something one could report to the police. If they are not an immediate threat, though, negotiation should be explored as an option - negotiation from the point of view that as a society, in terms of our social and legal structure, we _have_ progressed to the point where a woman can express her desire not to be chaperoned, and expect that desire to be respected.
 
 
This Sunday
11:59 / 18.05.07
I do think, Fulano, there used to be more of a concern with homosexuality across the board, with feminist movements and schools, but this was mostly a negative/fear thing, usually couched as the lavender menace or the notion that male homosexuality could be an outgrowth of misogyny. This has in most sensible areas and schools of feminism calmed down or been taken in more interesting directions.

I don't think gay men are 'less programmed' to be men than straight men, at least, not in early training. A number of gay men are indeed manly men, for better or worse. Any femming up by parents, say, of a child, putting a boy in dresses or putting lipstick on them at three through seven, if anything comes it, it's usually a different sort of gender affectation than specifically homosexuality. As adults, I think there are avenues of behaviour, of tics and open interests, that are easier for men to adopt openly if they're not-entirely-straight, as well as there being some things that one may feel need more repressing in certain company.

Same for women and girls, I would, again, presume.

Feminism, at what I consider its best, if taken as some massive multi-limbed ideological miasma, is concerned less with sexuality and more with promoting a society where everyone is able and willing to not use gender as the first qualifier to the situation. The issues of sexuality, women's, men's, and all the varieties can be cobbled together on short notice and dry martinis, would appear to me, then, to be secondary and not as readily agreed upon as that gender equality/disregard.

This is, of course, because I am willfully downplaying the schools and modes I don't like. Barbara Bush and Melissa Scott are occasionally noted as great feminists, making that downplaying easier. As well as allowing that there is crossover between feminism and sexuality or gender studies/theories, as well as well as many other cuts of social science, political maneuvering, et al, and that the appearance of these issues in feminist materials or schools may not be necessarily tethered to the feminism but simply seen as that cross-over (a bit simplistic, I admit, but we've been through my problems with this).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:02 / 18.05.07
In what ways have you educated yourself about feminism since you last generated reams and reams of text about it and then admitted you had no idea what you were talking about, DN?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:03 / 18.05.07
Can you tell me when Barbara Bush was described as a great feminist, and by whom, DD? I'm drawing a blank. I'm actually trying to think of whether Margaret Thatcher was described as such, as well, and I'm genuinely unsure - I mean, by anyine who was themselves actually recognisably a feminist, rather than by somebody claiming, say, that Thatcher proved that feminism had achieved its aims, or similar.
 
 
This Sunday
12:54 / 18.05.07
The Barbara Bush thing, I'll get back to you on, but it's mostly in Republican write-ups, hence the suspiciousness. There was a bit of a push for her during the Wellesly controvery, and while the louder and more populous voice was one of dissent against her, I'm not going to totally discount the voices in her defense to nonexistence.

The Pastor Scott 'great feminist' lauding was just in one of the freebie papers in LA about two months ago.

I should have been clear that being cited as a 'great feminist' does not and cannot make one such a thing.

And Flyboy, I'm not even bothering with the line anymore, here, but I'm still standing by - however awkwardly communicated - virtually everything I posted. To sum up, I still think the example somebody gave (Ex, possibly, Ex has good examples - and some good suggestions of further reading which I have been dipping into), of Judith Butler positioning an article under a 'lesbian theories' collection, in order to more or less denounce the integrity or use of 'lesbian theories' as a banner is a great example of where I think the most useful avenues for a lot of schools or modes may be. At least, that considering the option might be, because one person or a hundred people doing so isn't going to necessarily kill any movement/mode/ideology off. Utilizing the tools as tools.

If anyone's still offended by that, I apologize for the unintended offense and assure you, past this with Flyboy, it's tabled as a political disagreement as I feel most of those who disagreed with me, are happy enough and finding enough functionality in their own way of utilising the subject. If you'd like to PM me as to the specific offense, I would be glad to adjust future discussion of anything based on trying to avoid doing whatever it was in particular that caused the offense.

I do want to apologize for clogging up the thread with material that did not directly concern it, thank those who patiently waded through it, and suggest that if anything still needs to be addressed a thread on 'Misunderstandings or Ignorance with Feminism' be started. I actually think it might be an interesting thread to look at, really.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:04 / 18.05.07
I'm actually trying to think of whether Margaret Thatcher was described as such, as well, and I'm genuinely unsure

I believe one of the Spice Girls may have said something to that effect...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:51 / 18.05.07
ACtually, I think she said that Margaret Thatcher was the first Spice Girl...

The Barbara Bush thing, I'll get back to you on, but it's mostly in Republican write-ups, hence the suspiciousness.

Well, quite. This is what I'm thinking, and why these things need to be thought through - like your feminism/Nazism comparison earlier, there is more complexity in these matters than putting words next to each other. Barbara Bush - Feminist has a flavour, just as Nazi - Feminist does.

So, then we dig down - who was calling Barbara Bush a feminist, and why? What were they seeking to achieve? How can one both say "There's no guarantee that just because someone is called a feminist they are" and "I'm downplaying the forms of feminism I don't like - the existence of which is exemplified by Barbara Bush being called a feminist"? And what is up with that Lavender Menace thing? It's the second time you've used that exact phrase (actually, about the fourth, but I think repeating it was a device rather than a reference), and I'm still struggling to work out whether this is a feminism/nazism juxtaposition, or a suggestion that forms of feminist ideology spoke of the lavender menace.
 
 
Ex
14:13 / 18.05.07
'Lavender menace' is a quote from Betty Freidan in 1969 - she was warning against the nascent second wave feminist movement being taken over by a lesbian agencda. There were allegedly some 'purges' of identified-as-lesbian women from organisations such as NOW, but I can't find any online sources. Rita Mae Brown and others deliberately adopted the name 'Lavender Menace' to riff off that and suggest that yes, lesbian issue were in a sense 'threatening' the women's movement, because they were - or should be - at the heart fo that movement.

Don't know which bit - put down or rebuttal - DN is citing when zie references it.
 
 
This Sunday
14:17 / 18.05.07
why mention the 'lavender menace' accusation? Specifically, someone asked how gay men worked into feminism. I thought pointing out that in earlier (though not terribly long ago) times, both gay men and gay women were seen as suspect by some very forefront feminists and groups. That's what the accusation was, it was a homophobic paranoid warning from a prominent feminist, taken up by many others and denounced by many other others.

I guess I really wasn't thinking of Barbara Bush in an Eva Braun/Joseph Goebbels sense. I was just thinking of her as someone I clearly don't think should be inspirational to anyone, including women, or based on her acting as some forward-moving sign of the future of where women will/should be. Having gotten curious and reread her Wellesly commencement speech a few minutes ago: she moves from pointing out they chose her instead of Alice Walker, and then proves her worthiness by telling what Ferris Beuler said on his day off. There are however women who are inspired by her. I can't pretend they're all lying just to get on my nerves. There are women who see these women as the model for the future, as signs of what is to come and want to carry on towards that.

I do disregard them, mostly reflexively, as being part of 'real' feminism, but every time I have to go back and remind myself I'm not the one to make that call. Making that call on the fly just makes it easier to narrow down an essential feminism, and for selfish reasons I pare it down to an essential feminism I can agree with. One that does not include the directions following in the inspirational footsteps of Barbara Bush may lead. But, that paring down or essentialising does not invalidate the people who make that mode/school their mode/school, or make it alright for me - and possibly anyone else at all - to make them less feminist.

Like being 'pagan', 'pragmatist', or 'conservative' there's a difference between how you look at yourself as these things or not these things, and how others define them. There has to be.
 
 
This Sunday
14:21 / 18.05.07
Rita Mae Brown's adoption of the term, Lavender Menace, I've always taken as a sardonic motion, as her political activities have often taken used humorous detournement and reclamation. Her books, too, for that matter.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:28 / 18.05.07
Thanks, Ex - I was confused at the appparent use of "Lavender Menace" to talk about feminist attitudes to gay men, which was what FF had asked about, whereas I think that DD was actually saying "Earlier-stage feminism was concerened with homosexuality, (in the case of lesbians in terms of the) lavender menace and (in the case of gay men) saying that male homosexuality was an expression of misogyny" - that is, the lavender menace was a tangential reference to a term descriptive of a particular feminist's response to lesbians, rather than used to describe lesbian attitudes to gay men.
 
 
This Sunday
14:45 / 18.05.07
I try to cap the Brown side, as it is a title, where the accusation/concern was not. Catholic/catholic, Democratic Convention/democratic convention, Conservative Christian/conservative christian. Of course, I started a sentence in in my last post without capping, so clearly, I'm not perfect at this.

And I did presume 'homosexuality across the board' would be clear enough to cover women first and then close with the men. Lavender Menace as representing feminist views on gay men would be a bit odd, but intriguing. Must research.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:46 / 18.05.07
Sorry! Feminist attitudes to gay men. I have lesbians on the brain, it seems.
 
 
Lugue
21:32 / 18.05.07
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but Haus didn't seem clear on what I meant--I might not be myself, but I'm trying to get there--and DN's post doesn't exactly hit what I'm talking about. Oh, and I'm a gay guy myself (if this matters to how people read what I've said and am saying, and I guess it might).

I'd appreciate it if you explained your first paragraph adressing me, Haus, as I can't quite get what you're opposing to. I never suggested gender inequality stopped existing, I think.

-

I started chewing the thought after a fifty-year old (which seems relevant when describing just because I'm 18; sorry if that's silly of me) ganja-seller I'd just met at the park insisted on holding my hand after shaking it and commented that he saw the size of cocks through the size of hands as a way of hitting on me. Which reminded me of the wanking voyeur neighbour, and some other harsh approaches. I am not saying any of them should be condemned from the get-go and I am certainly not saying this is a manifestation of sexism.

But when I started thinking about, I realized that the people who I've discussed incidents like this with and who I think, possibly wrongly, more commonly find themselves in similar situations, are the straight women I know. So it seems hard not to link up and see the behaviour as male code that works across sexuality, grounded on cultural codes that are built around a heterossexual conception of Maleness. There is a lot of assuming going on here, I know, but I'm not attempting to state as fact, and would appreciate all questioning and input.

Now, since feminism- or parts of, or branches of, whatever - could be said to put traditional masculinity into question in it's relation with women, I was wondering if feminism happened to concern itself* with tradicional male traits in and of themselves, which is to say, when women are exctracted from the equation. And if not, who, though I realize I might be derailing the thread somewhat, seeing as how this isn't the Gender Fair.

Do feminists generally oppose homophobia against gay men? Do feminists have a general view on male homosexuality?

"Do feminists have a general view on homosexual masculinity, to the extent that it may be grounded on heterosexual masculinity?", I guess.

And if this still doesn't have any coherence, I'll be a good boy and shut up.

(*Not sure if I mean exclusively intelectually or not.)
 
 
Ticker
21:44 / 18.05.07
It maybe helpful to rephrase...

Feminism, in all of its forms I'm aware of, is concerned with examining power structures and critiquing them as socially constructed while equipping those oppressed to actively dismantle the offending bits.
 
 
Lugue
21:56 / 18.05.07
But a) is what I'm talking about qualifiable as relatable to those power structures and b) if so, still irrelevant to feminism?
 
 
This Sunday
22:01 / 18.05.07
I don't think feminism or feminists have a 'general view', if they ever did.

If you're worried about re-asking here, why not try the Q&A thread which is still on the front page of this forum?
 
 
Ticker
22:54 / 18.05.07
But a) is what I'm talking about qualifiable as relatable to those power structures and b) if so, still irrelevant to feminism?

Feminism, in all of its forms I'm aware of, is concerned with examining power structures and critiquing them as socially constructed while equipping those oppressed to actively dismantle the offending bits.

The dynamics of personal power/oppression in homosexual relationships are still power structures, yes?

...and all power structures are relevant to Feminism ( as I understand it).
 
 
alas
02:28 / 19.05.07
But a) is what I'm talking about qualifiable as relatable to those power structures and b) if so, still irrelevant to feminism?

I agree here with BIHB's ideas. In my mind, for any form of feminism to essentially "qualify" as a legitimate form of feminism it really must at some level be about understanding and dismantling current oppressive power structures; specifically, it must be devoted to interrogating the way power structures use ideas and stereotypes about gender and sexuality to reproduce themselves (i.e., to reproduce the status quo).

This definitely is the mode of feminism that has served as a critical element in the genealogy/develepment of queer theory. Feminists also, however, believe that interrogating one's own position and experience in relation to a power structure are vital activities. So female-identifying people have to have a privileged voice in relation to determining what, e.g., feminism is, what the women's liberation movement should be about. So male-identified people can be feminists, can claim solidarity with women in their struggle for liberation and/or de-colonization, but by definition, then, they can't take over deciding what feminism is or should be.

By extension, therefore, it would be inappropriate for women to tell gay men what their experience means or what kind of values, philosophy, or politics ought to derive from that experience. We can learn from gay men, and they can learn from us. We can support one another, but it's not our job to tell them what kind of politics or action will best suit their needs, nor vice versa. One of the best ways we can do this mutual learning can involve pointing out blind spots for one another: feminists of all orientations can and do tell gay men when they are benefitting from male privilege or perpetuating it. And gay men can tell straight-identifying feminists when they are benefiting from heteronormativity.

DN, Like Flyboy, I'm kind of annoyed by your posts in this thread. Especially the one above his last response--coming, as he pointed out, after your admission that you don't understand or support feminism, yet pronouncing so authoritatively on what it is or should be...well, you're coming across to me as both paternalistic and condescending.

Plus, I seem to be gathering from your postings that you want to believe you are able to occupy a kind of de-politicized position, and that there's some moral superiority in not making an alliance with any social movement. That seems a misreading of what I certainly consider to be the best poststructuralist approaches. Your views ARE ideological, whether you want them to be or not, and in fact they seem rooted in a hegemonic individualism that is deeply allied with patriarchal and capitalistic structures, so I am very suspicious of them. I'd be happy to be corrected in my views.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
02:35 / 19.05.07
Folia, I know that some radical feminists have critiqued the focus on masculinity within some gay cultures -- ie Sheila Jeffreys has a go at gay male pornography in Unpacking Queer Politics. I don't think that's a particularly useful critique, though.

Maybe a better question is, who is thinking critically about the kinds of sexual codes/practices that happen between gay men? Because there are all kinds of theorists of queer cultures who are certainly doing this, perhaps not explicitly with a feminist agenda, but certainly with an eye to talking about power relationships. This book might be what you're after.
 
 
This Sunday
03:03 / 19.05.07
I was honestly recommending the as an option because it's a catch-all thread. If that's condescending, I apologize, but it really is the only thread for questions that don't quite fit anywhere else. If Fulano wasn't feeling this was a good thread, that seemed a fine option for it to go to.

Again, if that was a pretentious recommendation or somehow inappropriate, I apologize.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:30 / 19.05.07
Franca: I think I have a clearer picture of where you're coming from, now, and I hope you didn't feel my man sex gag was mockery - it was intended to be a somewhat frivolous evocation of the point that individual sexuality exists within a broader structure of power within which individual actions can always be located. So, when you explained:

But when I started thinking about, I realized that the people who I've discussed incidents like this with and who I think, possibly wrongly, more commonly find themselves in similar situations, are the straight women I know.

I think I get it - you received an unwanted sexual advance from another man, which can be compared to unwanted sexual advances from men that women receive. Right? In which case, I think alas, BIHB and I are basically saying the same thing - that for us feminism is a way to critique structures of power, and that this critique is not aimed solely at, as DD seemed to be suggesting earlier, sorting out the position of women, any more than the logical extension of Marxism is resolving the issues in society that prevent Marxists being in charge (your mileage may vary, of course). A very good example might be that inequalities in expectation of women and men expect women to be sexually available and willing recipients of sexual attention or advances, but also expect men, if they are to be men, to offer the attention and make the advances. And, for that matter, to make those advances towards women. So, there's power operating in a way that puts unnecessary expectations on men and women, straight and gay, for which a feminist critique can benefit all parties. Does that make sense? So, talking about gay men as "less programmed to be men" is, I think, a misleading direction - gay men and straight men alike operate within the same overarching power structures, and come into conflict or make deals with them in ways that are contextually driven.

Now, as a man, or more precisly a brain in a jar which primarily experiences the world as a man and is experienced as same, I don't want to nail down what feminism _is_, or for that matter what it should be doing. However, I can, and I think it is a very good idea to, take the ideas and tools that I can acquire from feminist thought and see how they can be used to examine and if necessary attempt to dismantle or repair the structures around me.
 
 
Lugue
21:04 / 19.05.07
Appreciate responses; thinking about them.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
04:47 / 22.05.07
What is wrong with women? I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected. How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
07:31 / 22.05.07
I don't think he means it in the way it sounds, out of context. He's quoting. I think. The rest of the article is explicitly, if liberal-humanist-ishly, feminist.
 
 
Ticker
17:29 / 26.05.07
helps.

I come to rest my weary head upon your compassionate bosom Barbelith. Please give me suggestions.

1. When discussing Laundrygate with my male geek friends I keep getting the confused 'who cares/ I don't understand the issue' response. I try to explain the image is uncomfortable/upsetting for women and those who support them who are trying to over turn sexist harmful pro-bimbo images. There seems to be some piece of information I'm not getting across in the pro sex but not exploited counter arguement. Suggestions?

2. Last night I was hanging with 3 of my close friends, two male and one female and as they share a house they were discussing roommate choices. One of the males, C, was expressing discomfort advertising the opening because one of his close friends is looking for a room but the household has decided this person is not suitable. In the discussion around C's discomfort the female roommate E stated flatly that the person being rejected was not wanted because he had touched her inappropriately at a Xmas party. C launched into a defense of this person who was not present and it clearly upset E because her experience of being harassed wasbeing dismissed. When I tried to hold up the dismissal both of the male roommates seemed to be unable to understand they were being asked to start with and primarly hold as the cornerstone of the discussion E had an experience which she labled negative and not to justify the event or dismiss her reaction as incorrect. It ended up being a 4 hour long unpleasant discussion where I could not seem to communicate the damage of not listening to someone frame their own experience.

The second roommate J told E she should have stood up for herself when the offending trespasser upset her and seemed to be unwilling to understand that sexism is real and has made taking action difficult in one's self defense one you are unsure if you have the right to defend yourself. He kept saying 'well you should have just...'

During one of the more heated moments C banged his fists on the table and when I told him it was unacceptable and why, he told me to get over it. I lost my temper smashed my hands on the table and then left. Which was crappy of me (to smash hands) because I was just doing the same shit behavior.

E, C, and I ended up in the driveway for over an hour trying desperatly to communicate. I felt like I was on crazy pills trying to explain the difference between being asked to witness another person's experience and so validate their choices and support them, versus taking unasked action on their behalf. C kept repeating that he needed to ask questions about what had occured so he could make decisionshow to respondand I couldn't seem to communicate that he wasn't being asked to respond to the event but rather aid E infeeling her reaction was completely understandable.

I do adore the men around me but holy crap I feel like I need to send them to some sort of feminist bootcamp or taking a teacher's version of.

I think I'm going to go order bell hook's 'Feminism is for Everyone' book.
 
 
*
18:32 / 26.05.07
Oh my Gods.

I think the most helpful thing I can say is that you did about what I would have done on a good day—on a bad day it wouldn't have been table smashing.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:36 / 26.05.07
Disown these people, XK.
 
 
Ticker
20:15 / 26.05.07
Thanks guys.

I still feel like I need a better language/concept kit. Disowning seems like a last resort and I am trying to approach the situation appreciating the desire of the people involved to take care of each other. C especially was trying really hard to understand and was willing to engage, invest time, and give others his full attention. J seems mad at me today for causing problems and I have a whole lot of WHATEVAH for him. I checked in with E and she's glad I did throw in with her and confirmed I hadn't presented myself as speaking for her (I worry sometimes when I'm defending others I get carried away...).

It seems like a specific problem I know other people have dealt with succesfully in compassionate ways?
 
 
HCE
22:08 / 26.05.07
If by compassion you mean bleeding from my eyes.

Sorry you had to go through that.
 
 
Ticker
11:55 / 27.05.07
No eye bleed! Sorry!

It does remind me how deeply ingrained a lot of the behaviors are even in people who consider themselves progressive.
 
 
Papess
12:07 / 27.05.07
J seems mad at me today for causing problems...

Isn't that just the way...? The person who communicates there is a problem with something, is then percieved as the source of the problem. I suppose if the issue was never brought up again, it wouldn't exist? :eyerollything: That is just succesful oppression.


I have more to say on this, but I am actually afraid to.
 
 
Ticker
12:09 / 27.05.07
Whyfore you afraid?
 
 
Papess
12:11 / 27.05.07
Because, I may be seen as the problem.

Sorry, demonstrative sarcasm.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:22 / 27.05.07
(I wasn't quoting the Joss Whedon thing because I thought he was being a dirty misogynist, but because he was attacking dirty misgynists, apologies for the confusion)
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2324252627(28)2930313233... 34

 
  
Add Your Reply