what is feminism?

We have been having a discussion regarding what feminism is; insular academic criticism or mainstream social activist movement.Some of us acknowledge that there are, in fact, these two spheres of feminism, but others are insisting that the obscure academic feminist criticism found in women's studies classes defines all feminism.I propose that the modern face of mainstream feminism would be the National Organization for Women.Here are their basic aims:About | National Organization for Women The following are their list of issues thay confront: My question to those claiming that academic feminist literary criticism, or feminist ecology, etc, are feminism and no differing view, no matter if it calls itself feminist, can be called feminist is; what kind of movement is NOW? IS it a faminist movement? Even though they call themselves feminist, are they really not, according to you?

quote:

---

my point is that as a whole the movement is tending in the direction of the philosophical post-modernist movement and away from the activism and promotion of women's rights. that the academic sphere is, in fact, the mainstream, and the activists are the extremists (within the already non-mainstream group of feminism).

---

What is your definition of "mainstream", then?To me, "mainstream" means that a feminist's name is pretty recognizable by people who are not active in the movement, who's books are widely read, who's faces get on TV sometimes.People like Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, Susan Faludi, and possibly even Dr. Deborah Tannen would be mainstream feminists as I am using the word.You seem to be using the word "mainstream" in a very different way than I am.You seem to be using it to mean "prominent people withing the fringe philospohical academic field of feminist literary criticism."Those people can be as prominent in their little rarified atmosphere as they want, but what they do is mainly meaningless to anyone but themselves.

quote:

---

i'm not here to piss off women or male feminists. i'm all for equality as impossible as it may actually be. i just think people calling themselves feminists and thinking they know what it means would do well to take a class in the subject, before arguing such a point.

​

until then, i'm not especially interested in a debate. it's almost as bad as trying to explain the finer points of genetics to a creationist who's never taken a biology class.

---

No, it's not really like that at all.You are trying to tell us what the "true" face of feminism really is, and I disagree.You have simply asserted that your definition of what feminism is is the correct one, and dismissed anyone who hasn't taken some class, but you also say there are many kinds of feminism.Which is it?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, I heard you just fine.What I am trying to tell you is that, even if these people exist, and they decide this among themselves in their own little rarified world, nobody, including me, cares what they think but them.I think you and arach have bought into the myth, that these women's studies people apaarently did a good job of convincing you was true, that they represent "real" feminism.

quote:

---

my point is that although there are a lot of people that CALL themselves feminists, the movement as a whole is tending in another direction than women's rights.

---

See, I don't get why you are saying that, since the kind of feminism you describe isn't anything like what I have ever identified as women's rights/political social activist movement feminism.So, what is your evidence that the political feminist activist women's rights movement is being overshadowed or surplanted by the academic literary criticism feminism?I mean, who are these people who are taking over?

OK, I'll write it with better syntax.What I am trying to tell you is that, even if these people exist, and they decide that they are the "true face of feminism" among themselves in their own little rarified world, nobody, including me, cares what they think but them.You an arach took a women's studies class.The people who taught it were academic feminists who deal in literary and social criticism at the philosophical level.Those people, who mainly write for each other in their insular academic world and have little effect upon the social activist or political arenas, have somehow convinced you both that their obscure views represent "real" feminism.They have also convinced both of you that their views are the "mainstream", prominent views among all feminists, and that the political and social activist, equal rights-style of feminism is dead or all but gone.Just because those people told you this doesn't make it true.Where is the evidence that their views are making any inroads into the hearts and minds of the general populace, especially those who believe in gender equality?

quote:

---

but as feminists say that all science and mathematics are masculine and thus flawed....

---

Yes, I am a feminist, but no, I don't think that all science and mathematics are masculine and therefore flawed.I think that is a stupid view.Hey, Crash, aren't you a feminist?Do you think that all science and mathematics are masuline and therefore flawed?Oh, and look what I found after a quick google on "girls math science feminist":The main page is an organization called Feminist Majority Foundation, and within that is a pro-choice group called Feminist Campus.Page not found – Feminist Campus Why, I thought that feminists thought math and science were bad and masculine?Why would these feminists be promoting science and math to women and girls?I'm so confused.

From a "Mother Jones" interview with Gloria Steinem.I think this says it all.Italics added by me.Gloria – Mother JonesQ: From a distance, a fair bit of academic feminist writing and argument seems pretty near impenetrable.A: Yeah, but that's stupid. Nobody cares about them. That's careerism. These poor women in academia have to talk this silly language that nobody can understand in order to be accepted, they think. If I read the word "problematize" one more time, I'm going to vomit. If I hear people talking about "feminist praxis"--I mean, it's practice, say practice. But I recognize the fact that we have this ridiculous system of tenure, that the whole thrust of academia is one that values education, in my opinion, in inverse ratio to its usefulness--and what you write in inverse relationship to its understandability. So I think the answer to it is to look with some compassion at the situation in which the women who are writing this gobbledygook find themselves and to say, "How can we solve this?"Well, one way we can solve it is to get a better exchange going between activism and academia, so that the academics are putting their glorious intellectual powers to work on researching real problems. But I don't see any point in blaming feminism--which is essentially a populist movement--for what filters through in an academic setting we don't control.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-27-2004 09:24 AM

quote:

---

she may think it's stupid.

---

Yes, and as I and others have been saying all along, and she explained in the interview, academic feminism is mainly useless in the real world.Weren't you claiming that academic feminism was "taking over" and was "widespread" throughout the culture, or something similar?

quote:

---

well, they think the same of her popularism.

---

They do? Can you show me some evidence of that?

quote:

---

as though she's trying to play the middle and still please men instead of overthrowing them as she ought.

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Gloria Steinem was a major, major leader in the feminist movement in the 70's and for decades after.She has always pushed for women to recognize and address the patriarchy in their lives.And why "ought she" overthrow men? She likes men. She just doesn't like patriarchy, but she sees men as victims of it just as women are. Social conditioning puts us in these strict gender roles that are completely arbitrary.Haven't you been saying something similar?Anyway, the point of my quoting her was to show you that there is a large difference between the populist movement feminism and literary criticisam academic feminism, and that the former doesn't give a crap about the latter. Also, the latter doesn't have much bearing on most people's life, but the former does.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-29-2005 08:37 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

Would these be academic feminists, intheir ivory towers on campus, far removed from politics and the real world, populist feminism?Or, would they be the feminists who welcome the numerous male volunteers at the battered women's shelter I volunteer at?

Then they are stupid and nobody with half a brain or interest in practical application will ever pay much attention to them....like I have been saying all along.

But I repeat, so what?I liken academic feminism to the art world; great and powerful within their own little realms, but having little impact upon the majority of the real world.They have made themselves largely irrelevant to most people who aren't in that world.A big hero of mine is Allan Sokal, who hoaxed a prominent academic journal of social criticism: brilliant hoaxThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-29-2005 11:00 AM

quote:

---

that would be part of my point. i'm not sure of your term coalface but nonetheless, academic feminists are the ones published in academic literature. thus, their position is heard by other academics (and professionals) and sometimes even listened to. their research is what influences (apparently) the psycology of film and thus will eventually entirely invade popular culture in some fashion.

---

What makes you think that academic feminist literaty criticism will eventually invade popular culture to any great extent, especially considering the great divide between the populist movement and the academic world?Indeed, I think we have seen the populist stripe of feminism having a much, much greater influence upon the general culture comparatively.It the hard-knock world of popular entertainment, esoteric, incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo navel gazing will be ignored fasster than you can say "Wow, what a cool explosion".You now seem to be backing WAY off from your original assertion that academic feminism was spreading like a cancer over the land.Now you say that it will "eventually" entirely invade popular culture.Do you now agree that it currently has little to no influence?

quote:

---

i think that it does not have immense influence, but i think that it has more than you might expect.

---

Well, I've asked to be shown this influence outside of academia, but I don't think I've been shown much of anything.And anyway, this is, as I beat this dead horse, a very long way from what you originally claimed.

quote:

---

and would you get off this literary criticism train. there's more to academic feminism than looking at old books about white guys and figuring out what it does say about women. it is a complete critique of culture both archaic and modern and how things ought to be. god i can't believe i'm arguing for this crap.

---

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

quote:

---

but still. every form of study has the right to be respected as having some effect, because they all do.

---

But a great effect upon the greater popular culture? Especially an effect with far-reaching, profound or at least noticeable effects on many people's every day lives? Eh, I just don't see it.

quote:

---

would you say judaic studies or african american studies has so very little impact on popular culture as you claim women's studies has? or is this special in some way?

---

I think the fact that such areas of study exist is influential, as this implies that the subject is considered worthy of study.However, any area of study is accepted by the popular culture in direct proportion to it's relevance to everyday people's lives.I just don't see the current sort of scademic feminism having much impact upon everyday people's lives, since these people tend to write for each other rather than try to work for any real change.In addition, the humanitues are prone to navel gazing as they do not have to test their ideas against any objective reality or show their usefulness or practicality.

So, do you think that Jon Stuart Mill's book is similar to anything written by current academic feminists?

quote:

---

that's like saying because academic science has nothing to do with medicine and therefore doesn't help us any and doesn't matter.

---

Actually, academic science does have quite a lot to do with medicine, in that basic research into Biological phenomena leads to greater understanding of them and that will lead to better therapies, drugs, and procedures.Can you show me where academic feminist ideas are similarly absorbed into the mainstream populist feminist movement?I doubt you can, simply because I am part of that movement and I had never heard of "feminist ecology" before you mentioned it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-29-2005 06:35 PM