Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is feminism?
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 147 (144243)
09-23-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by contracycle
09-23-2004 4:34 AM


Somebody needs a nap
contracycle writes:
Because people keep saying feminism this, feminism that, and using slanderous terms like femi-nazis, so I want to know who this disreputable face of feminism is. Cough it up.
Or you, born to preach. Put your money where your mouth is.
Schraff, I was just kidding about that femme naz- Whoa wait, this is contracycle!
Look, it's starting to seem like you have some kind of grudge against me for telling racist jokes way back then. I'm not racist or sexist, crapcycle. Get over it.
As for puttin' my money where my mouth is I spent pretty much my last dollar on that bad blind date(see my last thread) about two weeks ago, and then my actual last dollar on a gatorade, so no dough.
But as I've mentioned before, these 'femme-nazis' are these girls at my school who bitch and moan about everything all the time; they mostly blame men for all their problems. They stand out because they all hang out together and want to start a Young Women's club at my school. I mentioned that I knew there was more to feminism than these screeching banshees; again I was JOKING kind of like the last time you tried to tag me for something I didn't(and still don't) really mean.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 4:34 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-23-2004 8:17 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:13 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

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


Message 17 of 147 (144252)
09-23-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by One_Charred_Wing
09-23-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Somebody needs a nap
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 09-23-2004 7:47 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 8:22 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

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


Message 18 of 147 (144255)
09-23-2004 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by macaroniandcheese
09-23-2004 8:17 PM


Re: Somebody needs a nap
wwns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-23-2004 8:17 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

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


Message 19 of 147 (144266)
09-23-2004 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by contracycle
09-23-2004 5:59 AM


Becuase of course Feminism cant be real academic reserach, and nothing wrotten for a women audience could possibly be legitimate.
actually, feminism (academically) is a branch of philosophy, so no, it can't be real academic research. the second part is not true, of course, but if you've ever read any "feminist research" you'd know why that request was probably made.
for instance, certain camps reject methodological naturalism, because it was devised by a chauvenist. they reject particle and quantum physics because there aren't enough women in the field.
we scorn creationists when they do things equally as stupid, and say things to the extent of personal beliefs being immaterial. but when we scorn feminist authors for doing the same thing -- asserting that personal biases are more important -- we get accused of being hate mongers.
some of the feminist literature i've read makes me feel exactly the same way dr. dino makes me feel.
I am stating that the feminist position is that all porn is mysogynistic.
Thus totally contradicting yourt later claims to have attacked only individuals...
i'm not gonna get in the middle of the name-calling argument, but you're both wrong. the current post-modern feminist position is actually in FAVOR of pornography. the activist camp is still against it, of course. the logic of the academics is that they promote women's rights, not limit form of expression and monetary gain. they think a woman should be free to do with her body as she wishes, and hold any kind of career she wants -- and that includes being a pornstar.
Note the total absence of qualifications. Feminists must get their arguments straight. Not this person or that person, all Feminists.
holmes, like most rational people (myself included), has a need for things to be consistent and make sense. on the whole, feminism does not because it is not unified into any one thing. it's also because, not to sound to overly chauvinistic, there really is no pleasing an academic feminist. the entire subject is devoted to "problematizing" thing. inequalities always seem to favor men, whichever way they go. example:
in the english language, the gender neutral case is male by default. so when we don't know a person's gender, or we're talking about people in general we say he, him, his, etc. this is unfair to women, of course. but make it she, her and hers, and it's robbing women of their gender identity. the only solution is mangle the language: turn everything into the plural even when it's singular, or do the tacky his/hers thing. (i'm using "it" from now on, and if it makes you feel like an object, don't blame me)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 5:59 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 5:46 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 20 of 147 (144270)
09-23-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
09-23-2004 9:06 AM


Re: Topic?
I think schrafinator wants people's opinions on what they think feminism IS or ought to be.
i think feminism OUGHT TO BE the movement fighting for women's rights.
i think feminism IS the philosophy of promoting a so-called "feminine" world-view, which pertains to a lot of things which are very irrational, nonsensical, and just outright biased. (the quotes are because i believe this philosophy to actually be demeaning to the respectable women i know, and it decidedly has very little to do with gender)
i personally am in favor of balanced consideration, and special assistance for whomever needs it (regardless of gender, race, handicap, etc). i think all people should have equal rights and opportunity (which may require assistance), but that strict equality should not be enforced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 09-23-2004 9:06 AM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 21 of 147 (144387)
09-24-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 8:44 PM


...you're both wrong. the current post-modern feminist position is actually in FAVOR of pornography... they think a woman should be free to do with her body as she wishes, and hold any kind of career she wants -- and that includes being a pornstar.
No, actually I am 100% right and if you look at the thread where he quote mined everything you will find I said everything you just said above.
I even noted proporn feminist authors who I like (I think I did in this thread as well), and contrasted them with those that were antiporn.
The quote was pulled from a post where I was specifically talking about antiporn feminist critiques of porn and so had not felt the need to say antiporn every time I said feminist.
If it had been about antiporn Xian fundamentalist criticisms of porn, I would have just said "Xian". It seems that context means nothing anymore.
In that thread I also set out, and as you seem to agree, that feminism is not unified into any one thing. Indeed, it includes opposition groups.
In the future, remember that Contracycle is an industrial size quote miner.

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 19 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 8:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:09 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 09-25-2004 6:13 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 22 of 147 (144410)
09-24-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 5:22 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 5:22 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-24-2004 3:03 PM nator has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 147 (144415)
09-24-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 8:44 PM


quote:
for instance, certain camps reject methodological naturalism, because it was devised by a chauvenist. they reject particle and quantum physics because there aren't enough women in the field.
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.
quote:
we scorn creationists when they do things equally as stupid, and say things to the extent of personal beliefs being immaterial. but when we scorn feminist authors for doing the same thing -- asserting that personal biases are more important -- we get accused of being hate mongers.
Thats an appeal for pity. It does not happen when you criticise AUTHORS. It does apply when the error of one individual is used as a bat to beat other individuals, even though they were not complicit in the original error.
quote:
it's also because, not to sound to overly chauvinistic, there really is no pleasing an academic feminist. the entire subject is devoted to "problematizing" thing. inequalities always seem to favor men, whichever way they go
I say thats an appeal to the irrational female stereotype.
Now I will say that I am broadly critical of the "academic" post-modern strand, and as I see it it carries all the problems of post-modernism, including the uncritical acceptance of the consumerist argument to the application of social leverage. So I agree that quite a lot of this strand of analysis is, IMO, counterproductive - and thus we end up with absurdities such as lipstick being retailed as a feminist product because it makes you look good/feel good.
But I disagree with you that there is a great deal of problematising; that is only to argue your own conclusion. If someone argues that practice X is symptomatic of oppression, you need to engage with their analysis, not just dismiss it as creating problems were none exist. As I shall now show:
quote:
in the english language, the gender neutral case is male by default. so when we don't know a person's gender, or we're talking about people in general we say he, him, his, etc. this is unfair to women, of course. but make it she, her and hers, and it's robbing women of their gender identity. the only solution is mangle the language: turn everything into the plural even when it's singular, or do the tacky his/hers thing. (i'm using "it" from now on, and if it makes you feel like an object, don't blame me)
The English language is not some objectively external phenomenon over which we have no control; it is a tool at our disposal.
Your argument is prima facie contradictory: first you acnkowledge that by default we use "him" to refer to "her", but then object to the use of "it" because it denies female gender identity. Well, so does the generic use of "he"; so this offers no solution and no objection to a proposed solution.
Second, its unlikely that any change would in practice rob anyone of their gender identity, as its embedded so often: geder-specific names, and titles, make it nearly impossible to talk about anyone without conveying their gender, even if using a generic pronoun.
Third, the allegation that this is a "mangling" of the language is contestable. As I understand it, the deliberate and formal adoption of the MALE specific pronoun as the generic pronoun only occurred in the C18th, 1783 IIRC. Certainly, if you read English Napoleonic-era naval dipsatches, as I have done, they DO use the plural pronoun for the generic pronoun; there is a good case to be made that the use of the male pronoun is in fact "mangling the language".
Thus, the allegation that feminism "problematises" issues that do not exist, and propose "silly" solutions like changing the language, is falsified: because the Feminist position is only to reverse a change to an older form of English which, they argue, is eliminates some of the misogyny in the current version.
And as THAT shows, the argument is much more solidly based than just "problematising" an issue by people who can "never be pleased". And both of those arguments seem to be an appeal to an implicit irrationality of feminism.
It seems to me that in fact it is those who oppose feminism who problematise unnecessarily, and can never be satisifed. There would be not much lost if we altered the lnaguage again to is pre- C.19th structure, and ceertainly society would not come crashging down. What do we have to lose by making this change and not subsuming 50% of our populace into the other 50%? So why the vehement resistance? Why the accusations of "problematising"?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-24-2004 10:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 8:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-24-2004 3:07 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 09-25-2004 6:10 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 147 (144416)
09-24-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
09-24-2004 5:46 AM


quote:
I even noted proporn feminist authors who I like (I think I did in this thread as well), and contrasted them with those that were antiporn.
Actually, as you well now, I attacked your blunderbuss blasts at Feminism precisely because some feminist authoers do support porn, at which point you backpeddled with shameful haste.
quote:
The quote was pulled from a post where I was specifically talking about antiporn feminist critiques of porn and so had not felt the need to say antiporn every time I said feminist.
Pull the other one, its got bells on.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-24-2004 10:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 5:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 1:52 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 147 (144417)
09-24-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by One_Charred_Wing
09-23-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Somebody needs a nap
quote:
Look, it's starting to seem like you have some kind of grudge against me for telling racist jokes way back then. I'm not racist or sexist, crapcycle. Get over it
Your protestations achieve nothing, your behaviour is consistently biggotted, and you remain racist scum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 09-23-2004 7:47 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 09-25-2004 1:38 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 26 of 147 (144452)
09-24-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by contracycle
09-24-2004 11:09 AM


I attacked your blunderbuss blasts at Feminism precisely because some feminist authoers do support porn, at which point you backpeddled with shameful haste.
You can play that tune all you want, but its all false notes.
The fact of the matter is I started studying the debate over 15 years ago. I was well aware of and had been reading proporn feminists then, and followed them as they have grown in number since then. I wish I had my college papers so I could send them to you and "prove" my point.
However some on this site should know proof did exist. Before you came to EvC I had been in debates on this subject with Schraf. In those debates I was mentioning (and linking) to pro porn and pro prostitution feminists to debunk some of her claims.
So you can pretend you "shook my world" and made me change my position, but that is because your view (as always) is that little porch in Africa.
Good night contra.
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-24-2004 12:53 PM

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 24 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:09 AM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 27 of 147 (144460)
09-24-2004 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
09-24-2004 10:16 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 09-24-2004 10:16 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 09-24-2004 5:06 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

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


Message 28 of 147 (144462)
09-24-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by contracycle
09-24-2004 11:01 AM


[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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 11:01 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 147 (144464)
09-24-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
09-23-2004 5:22 PM


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.
Is this based on any sort of survey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2004 5:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 09-25-2004 5:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

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


Message 30 of 147 (144511)
09-24-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by macaroniandcheese
09-24-2004 3:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-24-2004 3:03 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-24-2004 5:22 PM nator has replied
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2004 5:46 PM nator 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