Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is feminism?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 121 of 147 (195969)
04-01-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
03-31-2005 10:46 AM


Re: Back to Square One, Apparently
I don't for a minute understand what you're talking about. I seriously don't. First you accuse me of conflating sex and gender, and now you're telling me that you understood that I wasn't?
For some reason we are talking past each other. The minor point that you confused sex and gender is so minor I am willing to drop discussing it. I only meant it as an interesting note. Unfortunately its just led to more confusion.
You appear to be conflating a cultural ideal of the "perfect" or "ultimate" man with cultural associations with maleness. We appear to be talking about two different things. In fact, the fact that culture would have to specifiy that the ideal man would not possess this characteristic of sexual violence is evidence that it is, in fact, associated with maleness.
How to define characteristics of "masculine" and "feminine" are arbitrary social constructs. There is no set right or wrong way.
Feminists clearly use the idea of accepting stereotypes or demographic associations to fix what is "masculine", while rejecting the same for "feminine". Inconsistent, but not wrong.
Traditional concepts of masculinity and feminity were based on ideals, as much of ancient cultures focused on beauty and ideals. There were also some connections based simply around similarity of function to sexual body part (penis active, vagina passive). You can see this latter form in Yin/Yang concepts.
I would argue that most people in our culture do NOT use the feminist definition system, and use the more idealized version. I would argue this from the very examples of how people talk about masculinity. Most people (especially conservatives) find abuse of women, and abandonment of women to be wholly anti-masculine. They are less than men.
It would be hard for me to accept that they somehow how view an emasculating phenomenon as "masculine" in character, just because a man does it and it makes a man less a man. Gay sex is thought of as associated with men... is that thought of as masculine?
It's just a school of criticism where we develop interpretations of the text that focus on the gender roles and gender identities both explicitly and implicitly contained.
"We"??? Are you actually active in feminist critique? I would not have expected that.
In any case, my problem with that system is that they use inconsistent gender assignments as well as not adequately going over their methods. It is insular and self-reflecting. Sophistry.
I'm not here to do that right now, and I think I've made that pretty clear, right?
I think you have caveated it enough by now. You saw me berating Arach for being a little overboard on that issue right?
When did it get personal?
When you started in on me in the exact same way you were going at it with Arach. I was like a ref moving in to break up a clinch, only to find myself getting clinched and beaten.
If he had actually showed me something, I would have agreed. All I saw in his posts were "you're calling all men rapists" and "take my word for it, you're an idiot"
And that was your problem. Yes, he overreacted and stuck with his attacks on feminist critique. However you missed his actually showing you that the original alien was not what was seen in later movies, and there were whole production efforts to reach something not like what we saw them make in later movies.
Its like you were both blinded to what the other guy was saying. Then I stepped in and got hit from both sides.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2005 10:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 147 (195982)
04-01-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by nator
03-29-2005 1:28 PM


quote:
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.
I think the effects of feminism on popular culture can be discerned from the ease with which "bitch" passed into widely-used acceptable slang: that is, pretty much nil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 1:28 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:17 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 143 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 2:32 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 123 of 147 (195992)
04-01-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by pink sasquatch
03-29-2005 5:57 PM


Re: the real origins of women's rights
Urk! Can't resist OT aside... One of the biggies of early feminism has got to be Mary Wollstonecraft, associate of William Blake, Wife of William Godwin, defender of the writings of Thomas Paine. Oh - and mum of Mary Shelley. "Vindication of the Rights of Women" is a really fun read, and I'm sure you can get it of Gutenburg. Recommended!
And yes, she predates Mill by a few years.
Ah, my misspent youth in an English faculty!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-29-2005 5:57 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Tusko, posted 04-01-2005 8:23 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 124 of 147 (195993)
04-01-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tusko
04-01-2005 8:15 AM


Re: the real origins of women's rights
Doh! Everyone got there first with all my Wollstonecraft goodies! Ah well. That's the only time the topic here has strayed into my area of expertise, and you all knew it anyway. Bugger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tusko, posted 04-01-2005 8:15 AM Tusko has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 125 of 147 (196062)
04-01-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Silent H
04-01-2005 5:16 AM


The minor point that you confused sex and gender is so minor I am willing to drop discussing it.
I'm sorry that I responded so forcefully. I do understand the difference, as I'm sure you must be aware; but sometimes my language is ambiguous. That's party my fault and partly the fault of our culture and language. I mean I think the fact that we've actually had to explain that sex and gender are different things pretty much proves that, right?
How to define characteristics of "masculine" and "feminine" are arbitrary social constructs. There is no set right or wrong way.
Well, I agree, of course. Since my goal here is to describe, I would hope that my use of "masculine" or "feminine" would describe the way that they're used by my culture as accurately as possible; we might very well disagree on how accurate yours or my usage might be. I can't imagine how we'd go about proving how "society" views something. At best, we can both support our views from the "text".
Gay sex is thought of as associated with men... is that thought of as masculine?
I think of it that way, certainly. And you could make the argument that many gay men eroticize masculinity - leather, assless chaps (I love to say "assless chaps", don't you?), big hairy guys, all that. I understand those things often stand-in as stereotypes for all gay activity and all gay men, and I don't bring them up in that capability, but this is a fairly common subculture in the gay experience, right?
"We"??? Are you actually active in feminist critique?
Well, only in the sense that I was doing some, right then. We both were, by viewing a text through the lens of gender.
I guess I saw "we" because I used to be an English major, and part of that area of study is the use of critical techniques. But no, I'm not any kind of professional or academic active in the field. I'm just a dude who delivers sandwiches.
In any case, my problem with that system is that they use inconsistent gender assignments as well as not adequately going over their methods. It is insular and self-reflecting. Sophistry.
I don't think that criticism is far from the mark. But there is a sort of "purer" feminist criticism that one can do, where all we do is view texts through the lens of gender roles, and that's pretty much what I was hoping to do.
But there's very much an alternate view that focuses on judging and recitifying "society's" views of gender roles, and it employs feminist criticism to identify gender roles that it views as destructive. Whether or not this a legitimate or useful process is up in the air. Clearly the academic feminists we've been talking about view it as worthwhile. I'm of a different opinion, as I predict you are.
Then I stepped in and got hit from both sides.
Well, I'm sorry you felt that way. But I think we've come to a consensus, don't you agree? And even brought it back to the original topic of academic vs. practical feminism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2005 5:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2005 4:57 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 128 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:04 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-03-2005 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 147 (196063)
04-01-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by contracycle
04-01-2005 7:45 AM


I think the effects of feminism on popular culture can be discerned from the ease with which "bitch" passed into widely-used acceptable slang: that is, pretty much nil.
You don't see that as a fairly effective example of word reclaimation? I mean, if you were to call a woman under 25 a "bitch", she'd probably either laugh in your face and call you something back, or take it as a compliment.
Hell it's a term of endearment among women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by contracycle, posted 04-01-2005 7:45 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by contracycle, posted 04-04-2005 9:11 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 127 of 147 (196181)
04-02-2005 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 3:14 PM


I think of it that way, certainly. And you could make the argument that many gay men eroticize masculinity - leather, assless chaps (I love to say "assless chaps", don't you?), big hairy guys, all that.
I don't think its that easy. Having been in gay circles for a while... and now almost excusively since getting to A'dam (in the six years I've been coming here its like all the heteros moved out and the gays have taken over) I still don't see gay sex inherently be considered masculine, though it may involve two men. One will generally be viewed as masculine and the other feminine. There are exceptions but that's generally the case.
But even accepting the above analysis, my point was how the majority of society views it and that is certainly not as a "masculine" endeavour. Not saying because it is the majority, they are right, just pointing out that ideal concepts of masculinity are more common.
Well, I'm sorry you felt that way. But I think we've come to a consensus, don't you agree? And even brought it back to the original topic of academic vs. practical feminism.
I think so, except it seems Arach dropped out along the way somewhere.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 147 (196372)
04-03-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 3:14 PM


quote:
leather, assless chaps (I love to say "assless chaps", don't you?)
Uh, ALL chaps are assless, crashy.
Take it from someone who has worn them for the purpose they were originally meant for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2005 12:35 PM nator has replied
 Message 131 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-03-2005 1:32 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 147 (196432)
04-03-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by nator
04-03-2005 9:04 AM


Uh, ALL chaps are assless, crashy.
I did actually know that. (Assless, and inseam-less as well.) And I do know what they're really for.
But isn't that a great phrase to say? I make a point to use it whenever I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:04 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-03-2005 1:32 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 137 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 11:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 130 of 147 (196451)
04-03-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 3:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by crashfrog:
assless chaps (I love to say "assless chaps", don't you?)
you do realize that all chaps are assless right? they are a garment meant to protect the front of the legs from getting kicked or stepped on by bulls and horses.
oh yes. and if you have trouble understanding and keeping your terms straight because of the "language or culture" then it is only your lack of understanding of that language. english is quite versatile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2005 2:18 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 131 of 147 (196452)
04-03-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by nator
04-03-2005 9:04 AM


haha yeah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:04 AM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 132 of 147 (196453)
04-03-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
04-03-2005 12:35 PM


*sigh*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2005 12:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 147 (196464)
04-03-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by macaroniandcheese
04-03-2005 1:31 PM


you do realize that all chaps are assless right?
Well, let me see. Am I the stupidest person on Earth? No? Then yes, I did know that all chaps are assless. But thank you oh so very much for being the second person to correct me on this issue.
they are a garment meant to protect the front of the legs from getting kicked or stepped on by bulls and horses.
And thank you so much for being almost entirely, and ludicrously, wrong about the function of chaps. Apparently you didn't see anything unlikely on the face of it when you developed the mental model that a sheet of cowhide worn over your jeans could somehow protect you from the crushing power of the hoof of a 3000-lb bull.
Chaps are a protective covering worn originally by cattle ranchers to protect their legs and trousers from the thorns and barbs of the chaparral (from which the name, short for chaparajos, derives, through Spanish) through which they would often have to ride.
And, yes, I was able to write all that without looking it up, because, I repeat, I know what fucking chaps are, and what they are for, and whether or not a nominal pair of chaps has an ass.
Merciful Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-03-2005 1:31 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 136 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-03-2005 10:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 134 of 147 (196465)
04-03-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
04-03-2005 2:18 PM


I know what fucking chaps are, and what they are for, and whether or not a nominal pair of chaps has an ass.
Crash, you ignorant fool, ALL chaps are assless! (third time's a charm?)
I do agree, though, that the word "assless" should be enjoyed more than it is. Just like the word "squeegee".
Squeegee the assless chaps.
Squeegee the assless chaps.
Squeegee the assless chaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2005 2:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 04-03-2005 2:41 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 147 (196470)
04-03-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by pink sasquatch
04-03-2005 2:24 PM


Crash, you ignorant fool, ALL chaps are assless! (third time's a charm?)
Just to lay this to rest, I propose that everyone, as I did, perform a Google Image search for "assless chaps" (with SafeSearch turned off) and observe that 100% of results are either of fetishists or people mocking fetishists, and that 0% are of real cattlemen or their functional, occupational gear.
The term "assless chaps", while certainly pedantically trivial, is the accepted term of art for chaps worn as erotic costume; this usage is in demonstratable wide use.
Squeegee the assless chaps.
If you Google it I guarantee you'll find some well-squeegeed assless chaps.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-03-2005 01:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 2:24 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024