Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is feminism?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 147 (145072)
09-27-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by One_Charred_Wing
09-26-2004 9:00 PM


Re: Women can be...terrifying
By no means, and I completely disagree with anyone who says women are safer drivers.
studies indicate that, statistically, adolescent female drivers have less crashes that adolescent male drivers. so they get charged less car insurance.
my point is that when we apply the same logic, just in the other direction, it becomes sexist.
women, statistically make less money and live longer than men. so they get less life insurance. and that's sexist. now, the problem is the making less money. let's attack that, and the statistical insurance calculation will work themselves out. (and if they don't, we got after that next)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 09-26-2004 9:00 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 147 (145073)
09-27-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
09-25-2004 7:17 PM


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?
personal experience in the academic world. i really can't explain it any better.
if you'd like to understand what i'm trying to say, i highly suggest you take a class in women's studies and see for yourself.
as for who it is, i'm not actually sure. as a group, it's the post-modern philosophical academic kind. they all dig it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 09-25-2004 7:17 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 1:23 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 68 by CK, posted 03-25-2005 10:13 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 63 of 147 (145074)
09-27-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
09-27-2004 1:22 PM


personal experience in the academic world. i really can't explain it any better.
How does that apply to the non-academic world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 09-27-2004 1:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 09-27-2004 1:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 147 (145076)
09-27-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 1:23 PM


How does that apply to the non-academic world?
how does anything in the academic world apply to the non-academic world.
sure, we study things like biology and geology, but what does that have to do with reality? hell, what does political science have to do with politics?
i suggest two things:
1. that the non-academic world is lead by the academic world
2. there are more academic feminists now than non-academic feminists.
the second may well be wrong, but i don't think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 1:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 1:31 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 65 of 147 (145078)
09-27-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
09-27-2004 1:27 PM


how does anything in the academic world apply to the non-academic world.
Well, that's the very issue at hand - how does feminist criticism as an academic circle have anything to do with feminism as an activist movement?
sure, we study things like biology and geology, but what does that have to do with reality?
Ah, but those are two fields whose specific focus is the study of the real world.
The focus of academic feminist criticism is not the study of feminist activism, but the criticism of culture.
that the non-academic world is lead by the academic world
Well, the non-academic feminists don't consider themselves "led" by the academic feminists, as we have plainly seen thanks to Schraf. So I submit that your first suggestion is way, way off base.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 09-27-2004 1:27 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-21-2004 7:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 66 of 147 (151763)
10-21-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 1:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 1:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 67 of 147 (194403)
03-25-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
09-27-2004 10:12 AM


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 ~P
as 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 follies
these 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 09-27-2004 10:12 AM nator has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 68 of 147 (194404)
03-25-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
09-27-2004 1:22 PM


I did a woman's studies class when I was at uni - the male/female ratio was great.
On another note - A friend of my went for a job in a wimmin's studies department and when he walked in, one of the interviewers stood up and Said "but but your a MAN!".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 09-27-2004 1:22 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 10:23 AM CK has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 69 of 147 (194405)
03-25-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by CK
03-25-2005 10:13 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by CK, posted 03-25-2005 10:13 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 8:34 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 70 of 147 (194406)
03-25-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
09-27-2004 10:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 09-27-2004 10:23 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 8:30 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 147 (194914)
03-28-2005 7:30 AM


Umm, so whats new here? Women play a central role in their own oppression - this is standard stuff and inherent to an analysis of social conditioning. Thats exactly why it takes action and determination to bring about change, not merely piously hoping for better.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-28-2005 07:32 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2005 8:34 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 72 of 147 (195046)
03-28-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by contracycle
03-28-2005 7:30 AM


Come and Get It

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by contracycle, posted 03-28-2005 7:30 AM contracycle has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 147 (195144)
03-29-2005 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by macaroniandcheese
03-25-2005 10:25 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 10:25 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-29-2005 12:24 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 147 (195147)
03-29-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by macaroniandcheese
03-25-2005 10:23 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 03-29-2005 9:09 AM nator has replied
 Message 82 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-29-2005 12:30 PM nator has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 147 (195153)
03-29-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
03-29-2005 8:34 AM


i'm gonna guess academic.
but they've redefined gender. "man" doesn't mean "has a penis." it means "doesn't agree with us." people with penises that agree with them are "women."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 8:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 9:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024