BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

The Trouble with Modern Feminist Spitfires

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
MyKitchenSneezes
01:08 / 30.08.02
"What I would like to do is to scream: and in that scream I would have the screams of the raped, and the sobs of the battered; and even worse, in the center of that scream I would have the deafening sound of women's silence, that silence into which we are born because we are women and in which most of us die."
~andrea dworkin, in a speech entitled "i want a 24-hour truce in which there is no rape"

That statement makes me uncomfortable; it makes me want to back slowly away from the term feminist and hide behind a tree. The intent was to provoke, to inspire thought, to express the plight of the female race-- Ms. Dworkin was addressing a room full of antisexist men; she no doubt alienated them on the day that speech was delivered, and she managed to alienate me, a female, and a feminist.


I remember reading a story about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a trip she took to the pediatritian with her young son. He was sick, the doctor looked him over, and couldn't quite figure out what was wrong with him-- then Ms. Stanton finally figured it out, and the doctor attributed it to her 'motherly intuition.' She replied, 'No, it was simple logic.'
... THAT, I think, is the quintessential feminist moment...
It reinforces the idea that men & women are separate but equal.

But modern feminist figures like Dworkin, Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, Susan Faludi-- their works & choice of words + issues harken back to the idea of women as OVEREMOTIONAL, VICTIMIZED, IN NEED OF PROTECTION [legal and otherwise], SENSITIVE, and most of all, DIFFERENT FROM MEN.

Take this passage from D.A. Clarke's essay, "Justice Is A Woman With A Sword":
"Justice is a woman with a sword"--as slogans go, it is strangely evocative. The sword, after all, is the weapon of chivalry and honour. Aristocratic criminals were privileged to meet their deaths by the sword rather than the disgraceful hempen rope; gentlemen settled their differences and answered insults at swords' point. Women and peasants, of course, did not learn swordplay. The weapon, like the concepts of honour and personal courage it represented, was reserved for men, and only to those of good birth; no one else was expected or permitted to have a sense of personal pride or honour. Offences against a woman were revenged by her chosen champion.

A woman with a sword, then, is a powerful emblem. She is no one's property. A crime against her will be answered by her own hand. She is armed with the traditional weapon of honour and vengeance, implying both that she has a sense of personal dignity and worth, and that affronts against that dignity will be hazardous to the offending party. This is hardly the woman of pornographic male fantasy."

We are no longer dealing in terms of RIGHTS & EQUALITY... we are dealing with perceived fantasies of women... vague ideas about justice and co-opting perceived NATURAL RIGHTS & ICONOGRAPHY to even the scale. Does it seem to anyone else that this is counterproductive, ridiculous, and a testament to ye olde ideas Men and Women Being Different and somehow unequal??

And then there is the Pussy Power Brigade. Who reduce women back to being wombs. And aren't worthy of much of my time or thought.


I'm at a loss. Does anyone else sense an uprising of feminist thought that isn't dominated by higher educated white females... and accesible feminism?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
06:29 / 30.08.02
I haven't read much Dworkin, I've tended to look towards the likes of Sarah Schulman (New York writer, Jewish, activist, founder of the Lesbian Avengers) for my 'theory', theory meaning some kind of focus for the screaming anger I've always had. I don't have a problem with that paragraph of Dworkin's that you quoted. Why would it alienate anti-sexist men? Is is too much for them to hear how it really is? I've known and known of men (some from the anarcho punk movement in the 80s, I'm thinking specifically of the likes of the Poison Girls and Crass) who would not feel alienated by a feminist 'spitfire'. My oldest friend - a straight male - would have no problem with that quote either. So I'm not sure what you want - should we be nice about this? A man who is truly an ally should be able to deal with how it is.

Read Diane di Massa's 'Hothead Paisan' cartoon? That's pretty accessible. The Lesbian Avenger chapter I belonged to was accessible. I've only read an interview with American writer bell hooks, but she's a black, working class feminist and you might like to check out her books. Diamanda Galas, Pat Califia and Tribe 8 (multi racial queercore band) absolutely inspire me and blow me away. None of these people are what I would call highly educated and are a mixture of races. They're all what you might call 'spitfires'. I bless 'em for it, they help keep me sane.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:08 / 30.08.02
But modern feminist figures like Dworkin, Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, Susan Faludi-- their works & choice of words + issues harken back to the idea of women as OVEREMOTIONAL, VICTIMIZED, IN NEED OF PROTECTION [legal and otherwise], SENSITIVE, and most of all, DIFFERENT FROM MEN.

[bow]

Thank you. I could never get my head round my objection and I kept tripping over my thrice-damned male conscience. If you find anyone who has anything constructive to say about what the boys ought to be doing, please pass it on.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
07:55 / 30.08.02
"If you find anyone who has anything constructive to say about what the boys ought to be doing, please pass it on."

Fair comment. I think it's important for men to really think about their behaviour towards women - do you just talk at women, or with? Do you listen, do you let us contribute? Do you take our contribution seriously? If a woman is angry, do you respect that? The men I consider allies don't take a bashing when I see them - if we talk about feminism, they don't feel personally attacked, because they understand that it's men as an institution that I hate. And you must understand, really appreciate and understand, your male priviledge. To understand that that doesn't mean that male problems are dismissed, or that men have an easy life.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:05 / 30.08.02
I try not to 'talk at' anyone. I come from a very expressive, verbal family, and one of the things which is guaranteed to reduce me to a state of fury is having someone walk over me in conversation. Likewise, I don't "let" anyone contribute. People contribute, and I listen because that's how you learn.

I accept your point about 'Men as an institution', though I think it's probably wise to acknowledge that just as generalisations about 'Women' are liable to be poorly founded, so, too, there is an infinite diversity of male positions, and that if we are going to propose a multitude of genders, we have also to accept that the notion of a collective responsibility or right of either of the initial binary genders will be weakened.

Finally, my feeling is simply this: that we are, whatever our sexuality or gender, inextricably bound up with each other. Masculinity is apparently in crisis (I wouldn't know - I don't think I've ever been aware of a time when it wasn't like this). It's hard to locate a useful male role. That's a problem shared by women, straight or gay, because the interrelation of men and women forms a major part of societal discourse. I'd treasure a sympathetic (or at least pragmatic) rewriting of the male gender by a smart femininst - I might not agree with it, but it would form a good departure point for developing a Man archetype which would work around a realised female shape. Such a thing, curiously, would interest me far less coming from a male writer. Men define themselves so often in response to female decisions (and vice versa - even, more abstractly, amonst the gay community, sometimes directly, sometimes in relief) that only a cross-pollenation really makes any sense.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:19 / 30.08.02
I'd treasure a sympathetic (or at least pragmatic) rewriting of the male gender by a smart femininst - I might not agree with it, but it would form a good departure point for developing a Man archetype which would work around a realised female shape.

Although "tell us what you're thinking" is a very good and useful thing to do in interpersonal gender relations, I'm not sure it's the role of feminism to help men out with their crisis in masculinity (although Faludi's Stiffed does address this pretty much passim, IIRC), any more than it is men's duty to give the feminists a little nudge on how best to formulate and express their ideas to be more acceptable to a "reasonable" audience.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
12:36 / 30.08.02
Nick, I think that SFD, if it's hir posts you're responding to, has already covered this:

just as generalisations about 'Women' are liable to be poorly founded, so, too, there is an infinite diversity of male positions

explicitly and clearly, here:

"To understand that (hir critique of the institution of masculinity) that doesn't mean that male problems are dismissed, or that men have an easy life. "

And I'd suggest that you're making exactly the same kind of generalisations here:

"Men define themselves so often in response to female decisions (and vice versa - even, more abstractly, amonst the gay community ... that only a cross-pollenation really makes any sense."

To get back to the topic in hand, I know this sounds obvious, but feminism is a bloody broad church, and as SFD's pointed out, the term ' modern feminist spitfires' covers a lot of ground. I wouldn't, personally, regard Dworkin as particularly modern, she's been pushing the same line for the last 15 years with little progress.

But I'm not sure whether 'modernist feminist spitfires' is your description, or is in use to define a set group of thinkers...Which is it, as I'm curious?

Eg off the top off my head, if you want rights and equality, someone like Lisa Jardine is a brilliant example: a barrister/lecturer in law and women's studies whose focus is on how the rape laws and trial process construct the 'victim'. She's also prosecuted several high-profile rape cases. Middle class, certainly, but accessible, engaged and activist.
 
 
Persephone
12:38 / 30.08.02
Ah, but. Are you talking about a "sympathetic (or at least pragmatic) rewriting of the male gender by a smart femininst" or a smart woman?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:44 / 30.08.02
I'm not sure it's the role of feminism to help men out with their crisis in masculinity

I think the crisis is shared. That's rather my point. It seems to me that further down the line, when more in the way of equality has been achieved, it will be desirable for all genders to play a role in the formulation of modes of each other, since one of the principal aspects of gender is opposition and contrast, in some contexts in order to be attractive, in others for other reasons. It's not just men's crisis of masculinity, it is also women's, since its effects will inevitably impinge on them. Apart from anything else, these effects and the outcome of the crisis should be so configured as to improve the situation where possible, not make it worse.

any more than it is men's duty to give the feminists a little nudge on how best to formulate and express their ideas to be more acceptable to a "reasonable" audience.

What a coy formulation. Do you mean, then, that no offers of cooperation are good offers? I take the point - implicit, I think - that men offering women terms on what is an appropriate approach is hardly useful. At the same time, in a political context, and in terms of negotiation both personal and societal, it's not unhelpful to have a man involved in such a discussion simply because men and women - and their variants - do, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, employ language differently. If there's going to be a dialogue - and there is - it doesn't hurt to have a native speaker knocking around for reference. It's not that the discussion needs to be anodyne - not that that's terribly likely - just that it's difficult enough already without adding more confusion to the mix.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:51 / 30.08.02
I'd treasure a sympathetic (or at least pragmatic) rewriting of the male gender by a smart femininst - I might not agree with it, but it would form a good departure point for developing a Man archetype which would work around a realised female shape.

Although "tell us what you're thinking" is a very good and useful thing to do in interpersonal gender relations, I'm not sure it's the role of feminism to help men out with their crisis in masculinity (although Faludi's Stiffed does address this pretty much passim, IIRC), any more than it is men's duty to give the feminists a little nudge on how best to formulate and express their ideas to be more acceptable to a "reasonable" audience.
 
 
some guy
13:24 / 30.08.02
Andrea Dworkin isn't a feminist - she's a misanthropist. To me that puts her in a different playing field, and makes her commentary about as useful as financial advice from Jack Grubman.

And you must understand, really appreciate and understand, your male priviledge.

This to me is the core inbalance of the "women as victim" approach to feminism. An upper class woman has more "priviledge" than a working class man. White women have more "priviledge" than black men. Western women have more "priviledge" than many of their global counterparts. It's a good thing to evaluate and understand discrepancies in priviledge, rights and social potential, but broad statements like this are unhelpful at best. Feminism is but one strand of a thick, knotted rope of various isms that collide and effect our lives - statements made through a single ism always seem somehow lacking, as if they miss the big picture (racism, classism, nationalism and so on). Certainly a fool like Ann Coulter has more "priviledge" and social potential than anyone currently posting on Barbelith, for example.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:41 / 30.08.02
Plums:

I didn't think the 'institution' line covered it, so I wanted to explore it a bit more. As to the generalisations thing, yes, that's true, but we're in a sort of a vexed area here for me, because my feeling that there are myriad genders is bumping up against a construction of society (embraced by most of society) that is markedly binary. One could start crying 'foul' and saying that this makes all of us in some measure oppressed by roles we don't subscribe to, at least to some degree, and while that's true to a point but I don't find it especially impressive. However, to whatever extent there is such a thing as masculinity and it is in crisis, I think it must exist in a relationship with women of one kind or another.

Am I making any more sense?

I'm not good at gender stuff, though it interests me, and I'm making this up as I go along. If I slip, I expect y'all to catch me, not watch me hit the decking and bounce like a ruptured elephant, okay?

Persophone: Hmm. I'm not sure I want to go there. My first response was flippant, but heartfelt - "I'd hope there was a considerable degree of overlap..." I'm reminded of my mother, who was unquestionably one of the women of her generation who fought hard battles about not being bossed around by men, about having a job and a career instead of waiting to be wed, and so on - she's intelligent, articulate, and absolutely loathes the feminisms she sees expressed in the more theoretical arenas, because - to paraphrase her - they're so clumsy, and they don't give her anything to work with. She wants her feminism to be a spanner she can use to fix what's broken. Over the years, my more radical friends have criticised her for being reactionary and what have you, but I feel that any credo or position which chucks out the virtues she possesses is going in a very odd direction indeed.
 
 
Bill Posters
16:12 / 30.08.02
Er, am I the only one who can see this moving into the realms of a pretty insoluble epistemological problem - to what extent one can and/or should make generalisations? What the Dworkster says is true, but is it the only truth? Are women the only group in history who have been subject to sexual and physical abuse and silenced? It's a true narrative, but is it total, totalised or totalisable? No, obviously not. We must be careful of generalisations, including this one. Alfred North Whitehead said something to the effect that 'we think in generalities, but live life in specifics'. Very true, generally-speaking.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:14 / 30.08.02
I have a male anarchist friend with whom I often discuss feminism. Lets call him Dave. Dave takes women seriously, as intellectual equals. He supports the cause of equal pay and equal rights for women. His girlfriend earns more money than him which threatens him not in the slightest. He considers violence against women to be beyond the pale. Despite this, he claims to be against feminism.

His contention is that feminism isn't about equality - as I usually claim - it is about improving the lot for women. He thinks that the distinction is crucial. In his view, feminists are uninterested in a fairer and just society they are interested in getting a better deal for a particular section of society. As such, I believe he thinks feminism to be sexist.

Don't get me wrong. He doesn't oppose any of the standard goals of feminism. But discussions of male privilege tend to rather abstract round him as it would be hard to say how much he has benefited from beig male. He would say that this supports his point as lots of the feminists he argues with are far better off than he is.

Now I completely disagree with him. And we argue about it a lot. I think that equality needs to be fought from the point of view of the oppressed. But I sometimes wonder if I am misguided as Dave always tells me I am.

For instance, while I understand Haus saying,
I'm not sure it's the role of feminism to help men out with their crisis in masculinity...any more than it is men's duty to give the feminists a little nudge on how best to formulate and express their ideas to be more acceptable to a "reasonable" audience. - Haus
it does paint a picture of an oppositional movement. Almost as if we aren't trying to work together to get a fairer society, rather there is a fight by and for women which has little to do with men.

As an aside, I found Nick's comments to display a rather saddening lack of self esteem in masculinity. A rather common trait, which I believe comes about from the legal requirements not be sexist (a good thing) coupled with guilt for an imagined moral deficiency in men (a bad thing).

I know he wants feedback, but I think the tone seriously suggests that he holds women's opinions more seriously in some matters than men's. I tend to be a purist in not caring who does the speaking, but only what is said - I know that can be flawed, but it is a good rule of thumb.

Lastly, I am not comfortable with sfd's hatred of men as an institution. Its not that I feel threatened, but I want to refute the Daves of this world. As such, I really don't think you can separate hatred of the institution of men from hatred of men. To hate rapists, sexists and oppressors is one thing but "men" is a categorisation based on gender, if not biology. It is not a political division, so unless one wants to say that all men are sexist then one inevitably makes a generalisation along lines that feminism deems inappropriate.

I feel this about lots of situations. In the Israel Palestine conflict, both sides have many grievances. But I cannot support a hatred of the institution of either Jews or Arabs. Similarly, I don't like anti Americanism, and that gets me into a lot of arguments. Ultimately, I don't like hatred. Some of what Dworkin says is filled with it, and in my view those parts should be condemned.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:07 / 30.08.02
I found Nick's comments to display a rather saddening lack of self esteem in masculinity. A rather common trait, which I believe comes about from the legal requirements not be sexist (a good thing) coupled with guilt for an imagined moral deficiency in men (a bad thing).

Think again. I don't have a problem with my self-esteem; I do have quarrels with the role and positions which some constructions of masculinity would press upon me. But 'imagined moral deficiency' will get you in trouble here. Not a deficiency, but certainly an arguable culpability. I haven't examined my position on whether I buy the notion of a collective male guilt yet - I know my current version of the idea is a towering simplification, but I'm prepared to conceed it in order to have this discussion, and because, obviously, a lot of bad things have been done by some men to some women, and those things have taken an institutionalised form and have created the society in which we live, from which some men have benefitted, and which I would wish to reshape into a more equal way of living. (I'm formulating that in such a way as to make it the weakest statement of the case, and I hope pretty incontestable.)

I think the tone seriously suggests that he holds women's opinions more seriously in some matters than men's

You misunderstand me. There are plenty of men seeking to redefine what is male, what is masculine, what man's role is and what should be his relationship with women, and so on. These are no doubt interesting. The view of women (and Woman) is crucial, however, in achieving a construction of masculinity which will function in tandem with, rather than in an adversarial relationship with, women.

It's fairly obvious (though again I haven't examined it too closesly, so it may also be wrong) that part of the root of the 'crisis' in masculinity is the self-redefinition of women, which questions, for simple reasons, the patriarch, the husband, the father, the Man, and so on. Since the basic male was for many centuries set up as the heterosexual counterpart of the female, the removal of female approval and engagement in this game of genders was pretty traumatic. The self-redefinition of straight men is a dual attempt to find new distinctly male roles where women have suddenly started occupying traditionally male spaces, and to redraft the rules of heterosexual engagement so as to know what is and what is not appropriate behaviour towards women. (This latter is particularly difficult because the transition in society is far from even or complete, so 'appropriate' behaviour is not always 'attractive', and the rakish, and even offensive man is sometimes more likely to find admirers than the more pleasant one. Or more crassly, nice guys still finish last.)

The precise relationship at this point between straight and gay self-creations in the direction of masculinity is not something I'm going anywhere near. I simply have no idea.

The point I was getting to, slowly, is that it is for a variety of reasons meaningless to attempt to construct a masculine identity without reference to the female perception of what it should be.

Now there's another question, which I shall ask elsewhere, which is perhaps more interesting: is it necessary to have a construction of masculinity at all? What is it for? New thread pending.
 
 
at the scarwash
01:22 / 31.08.02
MyKitchen--

I just wanted to say thanks for calling Dworkin out. Ever since I first encountered her, I've felt she's done more damage to feminism than a busload of, say, Dave Sims, could ever hope to do. She is almost solely responsible for turning the cause into a laughingstock, thanks to the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
 
 
MyKitchenSneezes
20:23 / 31.08.02
I've been running around for a few days and haven't checked back on this thread since I wrote it... so I'll try to respond to things one at a time... if anyone is still paying attention.


shortfatdyke wrote:
I don't have a problem with that paragraph of Dworkin's that you quoted. Why would it alienate anti-sexist men? Is is too much for them to hear how it really is? I've known and known of men (some from the anarcho punk movement in the 80s, I'm thinking specifically of the likes of the Poison Girls and Crass) who would not feel alienated by a feminist 'spitfire'. My oldest friend - a straight male - would have no problem with that quote either. So I'm not sure what you want - should we be nice about this? A man who is truly an ally should be able to deal with how it is.

The problem I have with it is very simple-- she is painting herself as an overemotional, overwrought, victimized little woman... and, in doing so, dragging every rape/domestic violence/incest survivor along with her. Publicly addressing a room full of political figures and activists is by no means an appropriate place to air your FEELINGS or weep for those who have suffered. That is to be done in therapy. Ms. Dworkin's work is peppered with autobiographical information, and she wears her heart on her sleeve in all that she does. I can only speak for myself, but the idea that women will become the "heart of politics" (in the sense that they are the feeling, emotional side of it), an extension of being "the heart of the house", is intense. Women are finally begining to make SOME headway in the world of politics (it's minimal, but it's there), and it's sadly ironic that the part of what may be holding them back are FEMINISTS.

Furthermore, being "nice" is one thing. Being a complete idiot who shoots her own political causes in the feet by insulting those there to support & aid her by virtue of the fact that they are MALE and thus don't UNDERSTAND RAPE (which, as we all know, is complete nonsense) is quite another.

shortfatdyke wrote:
And you must understand, really appreciate and understand, your male priviledge. To understand that that doesn't mean that male problems are dismissed, or that men have an easy life.

Hmm. Male privilege. Would you consider a black man in America to be more privileged than a white female? Would a homosexual male in America be more privileged than a straight white female?

... there are so many variables...

We do live in a PATRIARCHY. However, living in a patriarchy doesn't mean that there are exclusive male privileges-- unless you wanted to get into INHERENT rights and NATURE (as some feminists do), but that defeats the cause.

And hating the "male institution"... is there, conversely, a female institution? And would a male be justified in hating it? Isn't acknowledging a "male institution" grouping an entire gender together, also creating a "female institution", and segregating the genders-- thus, completely defying all rational need for feminism?


testpattern wrote:
I just wanted to say thanks for calling Dworkin out. Ever since I first encountered her, I've felt she's done more damage to feminism than a busload of, say, Dave Sims, could ever hope to do. She is almost solely responsible for turning the cause into a laughingstock, thanks to the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Ah, you're very welcome. I know lots of young radical feminists who really look up to her, and it worries me. I think the sooner Andrea Dworkin & all of her skewed philosophies are pushed out of the public's consciousness, the better the chances of rebuilding that sad shell of a movement she and her comrades have left behind.


nick wrote:
"Thank you. I could never get my head round my objection and I kept tripping over my thrice-damned male conscience. If you find anyone who has anything constructive to say about what the boys ought to be doing, please pass it on."

~bows back~
Even if you aren't an anarchist (I'm not), give this questionnaire a gander.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
21:31 / 31.08.02
If I've read something by Dworkin, I wasn't aware. So I believe this is my introduction.

But about this:
Publicly addressing a room full of political figures and activists is by no means an appropriate place to air your FEELINGS or weep for those who have suffered. That is to be done in therapy.

Why is that?
 
 
Secularius
00:50 / 01.09.02
What's wrong with intuition? I think it's the most powerful feature anybody can have. Now 'simple logic' sounds so dumb. A robot can use simple logic, and even complex logic. Intuition is something that makes us distinctively human, and can be more accurate than empirical knowledge or 'simple logic'. I wish more people had intuition. Why should intuitive mothers reduce themselves down to our stupid logocentric system of male-domination? Now that's the problem with feminism. It creates cold-blooded robot bosses that see the qualities of intuition and empathy as threats to their intelligence, and thus eliminate them.

Why not concentrate on the differences, and try to change people attitudes towards them? I'm not saying that women are really much different from men, apart from the obvious biological differences. Even if our personality is a social construct, society's constructors haven't changed that much and aren't going to do so in the near future. Women and men do still behave differently. So what's wrong with taking the differences into account?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:53 / 01.09.02
Wow.

Am I the only person who's read some of these comments and gotten angry? Ah, well, I guess I'm just an overemotional little woman. And you know what? I think I'm going to air some of these emotions right here. Mixed in with a little of that all-important logic.

First off, let's start with Dworkin. And let's remember the fact that she was a "big deal" in the world of feminism nearly 30 years ago, when her book "Intercourse" (which says that all intercourse is actually a form of rape) came out. I completely disagree with her on this one, as do many other feminists. But hey, Dworkin's allowed to make her point. See, one of the wonderful things about feminism is that there are quite a few feminist theories out there. Cuz that's sort of of how theorizing works.

And I really wonder, have you read any Faludi? Because she does a really great job of backing up her theories with supportive evidence. Agree with her or disagree with her, but I think you're making a big mistake lumping her in with Dworkin. Dworkin is very much a second-wave feminist, Faludi's more on the third wave tip. I haven't read any of the other authors you mentioned (other than Cady-Stanton), so I can't really comment on them.

Also, I think there's a big difference in being angry and being a victim. Don't you think people who have been opressed (in this case, women, but I'm talking about all people who have been opressed) have a right to be anger? And if they're angry, and they show that anger, does that make them part of the "victim brigade?" I don't think so. As the Clash so brilliantly once said, "Anger can be power if you know how you can use it."

Just as an aside, I have a problem with the "woman as victim" school of feminism thought myself. I think it ends up disempowering women. But being angry and being a victim are NOT the same thing.

And just what do you mean by "The Pussy Power" brigade "who reduce women back to being wombs" ? It would be helpful if perhaps you backed this statement up with some fact, rather than airing your "OVEREMOTIONAL, HYPERSENSITIVE FEELINGS" in the headshop.

Also, would you care to explain why logic rational thought is more valid than emotion and intuition? This is a big pet-peeve of mine. Why do you find it more valid? Yes, I KNOW it's very helpful in the world of theory and solving problems, but human beings are not robots. If I'm in a dark car park late at night, and my intuition tells me there's danger so I high-tail it out of there even though there's no evidence to support my fear, and later I find out there was a rapist or a thief apprehended in that area, wasn't my emotional response a good one?

The problem people have with emotion, I think, is that it's messy. Not to mention subjective (by definition).

I have a lot more to say, but I've all ready gone on too long in this post so I'll stop now.

Grr.
 
 
some guy
17:48 / 01.09.02
What's wrong with intuition?

At worst, intuition is what tells us black people are inferior to white people.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
18:05 / 01.09.02
That has another name.

Intuition can be many things - well-managed, it is the expression of years of experience of human life.

Don't knock it.
 
 
some guy
19:45 / 01.09.02
Not knocking it - just pointing out the flip side.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:25 / 03.09.02
So, since Cherry Bomb was the last person actually to say something about a) feminism and b) Andrea Dworkin, does anyone have a response to her? Further burbling about intuition can be placed in a new thread.

So, is anger allowable? Should women keep autobiography or anger out of public proclamations on gender because they will hurt the cause, or is that giving in to male/patriarchal ideas of how speeches and writings should be made (I'm thinking of some of Judy Butler's stuff here, which is not autobiogrpahical, but intensely biogrpahical, emoting through masks...is this better because cleverer, or because harder to shoot down, or because less controversial?). As Apple-Picker asks, why should feelings be aired in therapy and not in public? Because that does seem to be a very male paradigm, and not one that is actually doing men a great deal of favours (vide suicide rates in young men who cannot afford therapists - is there a link here?). Are we disagreeing with the way Dworking expresses herself, or her beliefs, and if so which and why? I am interested to hear more about the "heart of politics" thing...

(Personally, I think she would get a lot more respect if she lost some weight, put on a proper dress and shaved her bloody armpits, but then I don't suppose that's "politically correct", is it?)

PLus, is anyone interested by the language in use here? Between the "calling out" and the bowing, I feel like I'm in the middle of an all-male performance of the White Devil, set in South Central LA...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:12 / 03.09.02
"Bowing" is a convention I picked up on the Well, the alt.postmodern and alt.magick newsgroups a few years back, and never quite shed. It was a gesture of respect used by men and women alike. I'm fond of it. It has a nicely archaic feel and conveys, I hope, the sense of placing myself at the feet of the speaker, 'cos what they've said has really made me start thinking - with the result in this case that there are about four new threads with a related slant.

I'm always fascinated by the notion that 'men don't talk', because some of the most restrained, untalkative men I've known have been the most communicative. Their communication is oblique and weird, but it's not all that hard.

For an example: I once went to stay in a town in the American south with a girlfriend. I was the first boyfriend she had ever brought home, and she warned me that she and her father didn't talk much anymore and that she didn't think he'd react very well to me being there.

We got off the plane, and he tossed me the keys to his sportscar and told me to drive her home. We got there and found we were in the guest room together, not in the kids rooms...and so on.

I've never seen such a huge effort do into communicating one, simple thing: "please, please forgive me. I want to be your Dad."

We make a big fuss about actions being more important than words. But a lot of the time we drop the ball when someone tries to initiate that kind of conversation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:52 / 03.09.02
And....back to feminist spitfires. As above, really. Does Dworkin say it best when she says nothing at all? Would she be better off if she adopted more "masculine" forms of communciation? And would she be likely to give Nick and his girlfriend the guest room with the double bed, anyway, given that all intercourse is rape? And that she's still on payments for that car?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:31 / 03.09.02
Or, to be alittle more schematic, Nick could see that the father was trying to communicate pride, a desire to be a family, acceptance, all that good stuff. But if he relayed this to his partner, she might perhaps justifiably have said, "Well, if he was so eager for us to be a family, why the yellowed fuck did he not say anything?" Might "Dworkinites" argue that they are in something of a cleft stick here? And, for that matter, do male and female Dworkinites express themselves in different ways?

(Oh, and Nick - got the bowing. It was the juxtaposition with "calling out" that caused the wierdness - shades of Bosola (which I know is Malfi) outside the Dworkin's lair resolved to do away with her evil once and for all)
 
 
some guy
13:36 / 03.09.02
So, is anger allowable?

Well of course anger is allowable, but does it serve the movement? I suppose we'd have to ask MLK and Malcolm X. The answer probably depends largely on audience - I would image anger works much better as a rhetorical tool when preaching to the converted, and only serves to alienate the great unwashed.

There are several reasons for this, one of which may be our ideal of adult behavior. Adults, we tell ourselves, do not throw tantrems. Another reason hits closer to your question of autobiography - people do not join movements for you (where 'you' is the speaker of any given speech). Actual mileage here may vary depending on how close to the audience demographic the speaker is - I'd wager that Dworkin is lightyears from the average grass roots American feminist (being that the average grass roots American feminist appears to not be a militant lesbian man-hater) and therefore rhetoric invoking autobiography is fairly unsuccessful for her, outside of a small core audience.

As Apple-Picker asks, why should feelings be aired in therapy and not in public?

Simply put, there is a vast difference between serving the public and a therapy session.

Because that does seem to be a very male paradigm, and not one that is actually doing men a great deal of favours

I have to agree with Nick on this one. In my experience men communicate to more or less the same degree as women - just in different ways. Trotting out old male/female stereotypes isn't helpful here.

Personally, I think [Dworkin] would get a lot more respect if she lost some weight, put on a proper dress and shaved her bloody armpits, but then I don't suppose that's "politically correct", is it?

I don't think most people even know what she looks like, so why would this matter? The reason so few people respect Dworkin is because she's a misanthrope (see "hating men as an institution" above). She's not a feminist at all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:15 / 03.09.02
A misanthrope hates *people*, not men. What you are accusing Dworkin of is misandry.

(I would also have to agree with Nick, although in a slightly different way, by suggesting that if the ways men choose to communicate are totally impenetrable to women then we are not getting very far on whether and how women should try to be more like chaps)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:37 / 03.09.02
Haus...please don't rewrite me.
 
 
some guy
14:45 / 03.09.02
I think Dworkin does hate people. She seems to hate women nearly as much as she hates men...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:57 / 03.09.02
Sorry, Nick, I didn't realise I was. Did the woman in question get the man-style communication-without-words?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:30 / 03.09.02
Actually, yes, though it was the beginning, rather than the end, of dialogue, and I didn't see the next stages. That isn't what I was objecting to, though. It was the next bit that irked me - that wasn't part of anything I was saying. I know you didn't do it on purpose, I just felt a bit misrepresented.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:31 / 03.09.02
Which reminds me, there was an article in the Independent Higher section today about highly educated women and their degree of satisfaction with their lives - beginning with those educated in the 30s and moving through. Worth a look, in this context.
 
 
Francine I
06:51 / 04.09.02
I don't think it's relevent to insinuate that the call for less emotional or personal discourse is a call for girls to play like boys. Women are certainly capable of expert communication in both arenas, and it's fallacious to indicate that emotional and anecdotal methods of communication belong exclusively in female expression while rational debate is the province of the penis.

Personally, I do not see why autobiographical material need be excluded from making points. I certainly do believe that cock or not, I have a right to voice my opinion on the matter -- just as those listening have a right to disagree with what I say. On the same token, I see no reason why it amounts to enforcement of a patriarchal paradigm to suggest that certain goals in conveying feminism might be better served by one or the other modes of communication.

Isn't it more sexist to take the stance that rational debate is a boy's game that true feminists need not play? Is it not an impartial tool, regardless of who has been holding it most recently? Does it not appeal equally to both sexes? Does it not lend itself equally to any point?

I by no means believe that rational exposition is superior in an overarching sense, but it may be successful in acheiving certain ends.

I also think that Haus is technically correct in asserting that it is not the domain of men to tell feminists such as Dworkin how to make their arguments "acceptable". I do believe that when men enter into dialogue with said feminists, in order to indicate how their ideas might be made more accessible, that this is a good thing -- regardless of how misguided such men may, or may not, be.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply