what is feminism?

*sigh*you people are way too upset about all this crap...first of all. the opening post of this thread describes me as saying that only academic feminism is feminism... and that is recisely the opposite of what i said. i said there is old feminism (the equality kind) and new feminism (the nutso bat-shit variety). however. the nutso variety do not recognize the old method as feminism. it's not my fault they're crazy.second. get over it.

you don't have to apologize. feminazi is a perfectly good term and appropriate for use in certain situations. no it does not describe all feminists, nor should it be used for such... but there are certain individuals who -as you said- bitch and moan about everything and find everything anyone who disagrees with them says as personally offensive etc. and we don't know any of those

no. he's saying that academic feminists don't think that we mainstreamers are real. can't you read?there is a professor at my school who is pretty millitant. she goes to women's studies conventions and gets told she isn't millitant enough because she's married TO A MAN and has a kid.that's the kind of stuff we're trying to tell you. but you refuse to listen. we aren't advocating it. you simply refuse to believe they don't like you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by contracycle:
[B][quote] Sure. And on the odd occassion, you'll find someone waxing lyrical about the mysticism of the moon. But thats exactly why I raise the question - why is it legitimate to criticise feminism en bloc in a manner which would not be legitimate in any other sphere?It seems to me that much of this criticism is misogynistic; it is the application of collective punishment. All feminist arguments must be dismissed because of a few nutters who have arrogated to themselves the term feminist.
[/B][/QUOTE]no. i'm picking on you specifically because you also refuse to read.

i'm sorry. you'll have to repeat that last bit in english.

you want evidence that people care about this stuff besides them? i didn't take a women's studies class. i took an ecology class called environment and society. we studied all forms of ecology. as part of this, we studied feminine ecology. then i took a human geography class. again. we studied the feminine. i took a rhetoric class. we studied feminism. all along i've heard the same things... and it's not about what you think it's about.

i meant that someone outside of that particular academic circle. genius.

i was answering this statementamong themselves in their own little rarified world, nobody, including me, cares what they think but them.in ,y opinion, i made a reasonable reply. it may not be non-academic, but it is non-feminist.

oh yes of course.... academia is a tiny, tiny little world with only one viewpoint. how could i forget.

i didn't say that, and no there isn't.there are other disciplines who give some credence to the fiminist views or at least discuss them.but as those who follow modern feminist philosophy say that all science and mathematics are masculine and thus flawed, those fields pay little or no attention to them. (even though they say that all other areas are flawed as well... )This message has been edited by brennakimi, 09-26-2004 04:47 PMcause people can't read continuity.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 09-26-2004 06:17 PM

fine with me.

i think we need to make a distinction between career feminist activists and people who think they are feminists. i sorta consider myself a feminist in the populist sense that i like the whole equality ideals. but i am not a career activist nor am i overt about my ideas ouside of constructive things like, say, voting.but then i'm also the most mysoginistic person most of my friends know. cause um. i hate women.

yeah that whole math being masculine thing.as though math is easier for boys. pft. just more boys are raised to be interested in math.sorry. i have an A in discrete... a class most people fail at least once. i'm not even a math major (yet). i have one of the highest grades in the class.i do not have a penis; therefore, math must not be masculine.P => Q
~Q thus ~Pas i said in another thread. math is a discovered science about the truths of the world. men just happened to be doing the discovering. btw. arithmatic was comepletely discovered by the saraceans. does anyone tell you that? don't tell bush or he'll abolish teaching math because the 'evil muslims' invented it to ruin our freedom.however. if you want a source on that existing in feminism gimme a sec.

quote:

---

Ambrose, Susan A., ed. Journeys of Women in Science and Engineering. Temple Univ. Press, 1998.

​

Barr, Jean and Lynda Birke. Common Science? Women, Science and Knowledge. Indiana University Press, 1998.

​

Benjamin, Marina, ed. A Question of Identity: Women, Science, and Literature. Rutgers Univ. Press, 1993.

​

Clarke, Bruce. Dora Marsden and Early Modernism: Gender, Individualism, Science. Univ. of Michigan Press, 1996.

​

Duran, Jane. Philosophies of Science: Feminist Theories. Westview Press, 1997.

​

Hager, Lori, ed. Women in Human Evolution. Routledge, 1997.

​

Hanen, Marsha and Kai Nielsen, ed. Science, Morality and Feminist Theory. 1987.

​

Haraway, Donna. Modest-Winess, Second-Millenium: Femaleman Meets Oncomouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge, 1997.

​

Haraway, Donna. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Moden Science. Routledge, 1989.

​

Haraway, Donna. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. Free Association Press, 1991.

​

Harding, Sandra. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Indiana Univ. Press, 1998.

​

Harding, Sandra. The 'Racial' Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future. Indiana University Press, 1993.

​

Harding, Sandra. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell Univ. Press, 1986.

​

Harding, Sandra and Jean F. O'Barr, ed. Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987.

​

Harding, Sandra and Merrill B. Hintikka, ed. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1983.

​

Harvey, Joy. "Almost a Man of Genius": Clemence Royer, Feminism, and Nineteenth-Century Science. Rutgers Univ. Press, 1997.

​

Jacobus, Mary, Evelyn Fox Keller and Sally Shuttleworth, ed. Body / Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. 1990.

​

Keller, Evelyn Fox. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. W.H. Freeman, 1983.

​

Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflection on Gender and Science. Yale University Press, 1985.

​

Keller, Evelyn Fox and Helen E. Longino, ed. Feminism and Science. Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.

​

Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory and Helen E. Longino, ed. Women, Gender, and Science: New Directions. Univ. Chicago Press, 1998.

​

Longino, Helen E. Can There Be a Feminist Science? 1986.

​

Longino, Helen E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton Univ. Press, 1990.

​

Lykke, Nina and Rosi Braidotti, ed. Between Monsters, Goddesses and Cyborgs: Feminist Confrontations with Science, Medicine and Cyberspace. 1996.

​

Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Jack Nelson, ed. Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Kluwer Academic Pub., 1996.

​

Newman, Louise Michele, ed. Men's Ideas/Women's Realities: Popular Science, 1870-1915. Elsevier Science Ltd., 1985.

​

Pattatucci, Angela M., ed. Women in Science: Meeting Challenges and Transcending Boundaries. Sage, 1998.

​

Paxton, Nancy L. George Eliot and Herbert Spencer: Feminism, Evolutionism, and the Reconstruction of Gender. princeton Univ. Press, 1991.

​

Rose, Hilary. Love, Power and Knowledge: Towards a Feminist Transformation of the Sciences. Indiana Univ. Press, 1994.

​

Rosser, Sue, ed. Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics and Engineering. Teachers College Press, 1995.

​

Schiebinger, Londa. The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Harvard University Press, 1989.

​

Schiebinger, Londa. Nature's Body: Sexual Politics and the Making of Modern Science. Beacon Press, 1993.

​

Tuana, Nancy, ed. Feminism and Science. Indiana Univ. Press, 1989.

​

Tuana, Nancy. The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious, and Philosophical Conceptions of Woman's Nature. Indiana Univ. Press, 1993.

---

(found here http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/sci.html just to give a good variety of sources)now. some of these will follow your thinking but some will indeed state that women cannot possibly stand for science as is.particularly, look up carolyn merchant and her book death of nature. she will describe how, by reorganizing the world into a hierarchical system, they allowed for the industrial revolution which of course has destroyed the world. or something.oh yes and joni seager's earth folliesthese are branches of ecofeminism which is a radical branch of feminism and thus not often discussed. but that does not mean it does not exist.remember. feminism is a broad subject and they won't tell you everything in your 101 class. congratulations, you don't know everything.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-25-2005 10:22 AM

exactly.there are a great many feminists who think that men cannot possibly be a part because they cannot possibly understand. they are the opressor, the mechanist, they cannot understand woman's organic relationship with nature and blah blah blah.

she may think it's stupid. well, they think the same of her popularism. as though she's trying to play the middle and still please men instead of overthrowing them as she ought.