Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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?
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 106 of 147 (195402)
03-30-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by macaroniandcheese
03-29-2005 11:31 PM


Re: the real origins of women's rights
there weren't very many academic women then were there? but they were about as well educated as a woman could be and i'm sure their reading didn't consist of dime store novels.
Your assertion regarding the foundations of feminism by an academic male in the late 1850's was shown to be wrong.
You still are asserting an academic foundation of feminism.
What information, correct or otherwise, are you now basing this assertion upon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-29-2005 11:31 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 10:24 AM pink sasquatch has replied

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


Message 107 of 147 (195405)
03-30-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by pink sasquatch
03-30-2005 10:02 AM


Re: the real origins of women's rights
alright, i went off a bit half-cocked to prove an assumption and grabbed the first thing i came upon.
Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (1787)
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)
Mary Wollstonecraft
a teacher.
an academic.
how's that?
btw. an academic is one who follows the world of thought and knowledge very closely though not necessarily employed by the university system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-30-2005 10:02 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-30-2005 3:39 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

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


Message 108 of 147 (195467)
03-30-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
03-30-2005 4:47 AM


A has a point that was not the worldview that anyone on the project was using, so to view it that way is to view it through a foreign filter not conducive to understanding the piece.
Ok, but while examining the motives of the producers/designers of the movie is certainly a valid means of criticism, it isn't the only means. And in fact the motives of the author are not generally examined in a feminist criticism of a text ("text" meaning any work of communication that we might choose to study), they're not usually relevant. The level of meaning that the author intends the text to have is only one of several levels of meaning contained in the text, and it is not one that I chose to consider.
I think the gender role filter you described is not common to most in the US
Let me say it again:
quote:
2) When I say that certain characteristics are masculine in our culture, I'm saying neither that all men do them, or that no women do.
When this sinks in, maybe we can all talk about this again.
Maybe you need to put in a word on whether you want to see the world change for a filterless view, or not.
I don't see that that's in the least relevant to a feminist criticism of the work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 4:47 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 2:56 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 109 of 147 (195479)
03-30-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
03-30-2005 2:21 PM


What the hell is wrong with you and Arach? I don't think either of you deserve the treatment you are giving each other, and know damn well I did not rate the following...
Let me say it again:
quote:
2) When I say that certain characteristics are masculine in our culture, I'm saying neither that all men do them, or that no women do.
When this sinks in, maybe we can all talk about this again.
Let me say this for the first time, and hopefully the last. I am not Arach and I understood what you said. What you obviously did was not understand what I said. The above is not a proper answer to my statement...
I think the gender role filter you described is not common to most in the US
Read it as many times as you need to figure out that your answer was to Arach somewhere else and not to what I said.
Ok, but while examining the motives of the producers/designers of the movie is certainly a valid means of criticism, it isn't the only means.
I said this myself didn't I? Didn't I mention that A had made a mistake in not taking into account that others would see the movie through their own filter?
Remember I'm the guy defending your ability to use terms of gender separate from objective sex.
motives of the author are not generally examined in a feminist criticism of a text ("text" meaning any work of communication that we might choose to study), they're not usually relevant.
That is of course a critique of feminist criticism, especially when they skip over rather large details as "not usually relevant", to blow up miniscule elements into "utterly relevant".
it is not one that I chose to consider.
You don't have to have felt what the creators intended as you watch it. Nor do you have to accept it as how you have to view it when you view it next.
However if you are going to have a valid criticism of what the movie was "about", one does need to consider the intent of the creators.
I was devastated when I finally learned that Marley's "No Woman, No Cry" was about a guy trying to cheer up his girlfriend, and not about a guy feeling down after having lost a girl and reflecting that without women he'd have no pain. Many people made that mistake.
If I critiqued that song, especially from a feminist perspective, or even my own, I'd be lax in considering (or trying to find out) what Marley had actually intended with that song. Right?
That said, even when I hear it now I tend to listen with my original "filter". If you want to see aliens as masculine... go ahead.
I don't see that that's in the least relevant to a feminist criticism of the work.
I simply meant you could stave off all the problems that Arach and Brenna were giving you by explaining that you did not personally endorse that perspective.

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 108 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 2:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 3:24 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 110 of 147 (195491)
03-30-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
03-30-2005 2:56 PM


I think the gender role filter you described is not common to most in the US
Look, I get it. That's what I've been saying it all along. So why are you treating this position like its controversial? You keep repeating it like it's something that I need to agree with, and so I don't understand, because I already have.
That is of course a critique of feminist criticism, especially when they skip over rather large details as "not usually relevant", to blow up miniscule elements into "utterly relevant".
I think you make a mistake of considering any school of criticism inherently superior to any other. They're just different frameworks through which we draw conclusions from texts. You don't have to agree with any of them, you can invent your own, whatever. "Criticizing" a school of criticism doesn't really make any sense.
But you should know that treating the work seperately from the intentions of the author is not new, not restricted to just feminism, and not actually all that uncommon. The audience of a work brings so much to the table, and what they bring changes so much over time, that the initial intentions of the author are generally little more than curiosities.
However if you are going to have a valid criticism of what the movie was "about", one does need to consider the intent of the creators.
No, actually, you really don't. Most people don't. It's fairly rare, in fact, that we acually have any record whatsoever of the author's real intentions beyond the text itself. For instance, I challenge you to criticize The Merchant of Venice from the perspective of Shakespeare's intentions. In fact that's a great example of a text where Shakespeare's intentions don't matter a whit; modern audiences recieve the play so differently from audiences of Shakespeare's time that those intentions are simply too alien to inform our reception of the text in this time.
Your mistake is that any one school of criticism is any more or less "valid" than any other. The only "invalid" criticism is one you can't support from the text.
If I critiqued that song, especially from a feminist perspective, or even my own, I'd be lax in considering (or trying to find out) what Marley had actually intended with that song. Right?
No. Neither your original interpretation, nor your new one, are any less or more valid. You can (and obiviously did) support them from the text.
Do you know the poem by Robert Frost, "Stopping By the Woods on a Snowy Evening?" The common interpretation of that poem is that its about death. I disagree. I interpret it as a reflective moment for Santa Claus, and, more importantly, I can support that from the text. I'm certain that's not what Frost had in mind when he wrote it, but that doesn't make my interpretation any less valid.
I simply meant you could stave off all the problems that Arach and Brenna were giving you by explaining that you did not personally endorse that perspective.
I don't understand. Wherever did I give the impression that I personally endorsed the idea of a man raping women and then abandoning them after they become pregnant? That's repugnant.
If you mean, on the other hand, that I "personally endorse" the position that "love em and leave em" behaviors are associated with men in our culture, then I do absolutely endorse that position, because that's a true statement. Those behaviors are associated with men in our culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 2:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 4:13 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 111 of 147 (195496)
03-30-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by macaroniandcheese
03-30-2005 10:24 AM


academia in the mainstream
Mary Wollstonecraft
a teacher.
an academic.
how's that?
Quite silly, if you ask me. Citing a grade-school teacher as an "academic" in the same sense as the modern feminist academic movement is more than a stretch.
btw. an academic is one who follows the world of thought and knowledge very closely though not necessarily employed by the university system.
I see... now you've come up with a definition that is ambiguous enough that it can be used to define anyone you want to claim is an academic.
The definition you provide is very different than that defined by the word's usage in this thread - based on use and context here, "academic" would be defined to include the often implied disconnect between academia and the "real world".
Also, to respond to another line of commentary:
academic science has very little to do directly with medicine. and remember. there is more to science than biology and much more than medical biology. studies of deep sea worms will not make your pace-maker run better.
You load these comments with the word "directly"; studies to understand the molecular physiology of the human heart will have significant impact on medical treatment, even though you deem them "indirect". Studies of things that might seem without medical relevance to you have a profound effect on medicine, even deep sea worms. Before you made this line of argument I posted this topic, describing how fly egg development and yeast cell division have been used to greatly advance understanding and treatment of colon cancer. How academic...
In any case, I don't see that you answered schraf's main protest (though perhaps I missed it); which was a request to see some evidence that academic feminism guides mainstream feminism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 10:24 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Ooook!, posted 03-30-2005 7:34 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

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


Message 112 of 147 (195510)
03-30-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
03-30-2005 3:24 PM


You keep repeating it like it's something that I need to agree with, and so I don't understand, because I already have.
Is directly contradicted by this...
If you mean, on the other hand, that I "personally endorse" the position that "love em and leave em" behaviors are associated with men in our culture, then I do absolutely endorse that position, because that's a true statement. Those behaviors are associated with men in our culture.
What I find particularly interesting is that you missed your making the mistake of confusing sex with gender. Just because something is associated with a sex, does NOT mean it is associated with gender.
Men may rape more than women, but that does not inherently make rape a masculine characteristic.
I would argue most people in this culture would view the men who love and leave women (to the degree you describe) to be very bad examples of what it is to be a REAL MAN, and thus not showing masculine characteristics at all.
Feminists might disagree, but they are not in the majority. Personally I separate sex from gender and do not view that as masculine either.
Criticizing" a school of criticism doesn't really make any sense.
Of course you can criticize them. You simply cannot say that they are objectively false from the get go. You can criticize their consistency and use of evidence for providing a coherent view of the object of their criticism.
The audience of a work brings so much to the table, and what they bring changes so much over time, that the initial intentions of the author are generally little more than curiosities.
That is a bit absurd. That kind of reasoning can also be used to implicate evolutionary theory as nihilistic and eugenical because the intentions of the scientists mean little compared to how the "audience" percieves it.
Yes people can take something away from any work that the creator had not intended. One can criticize the effect that the art had then, though the blame would then be on the audience and not on the art.
See the cunning trick of criticism. It starts by saying you can look at art devoid of the artist, because its what the audience reads into it which is important, yet then uses audience reaction to blame the art and the artist.
If it wanted to be logically consistent it would be critiquing the audiences for what they take from the art, rather than the art or the artist.
If you want to critique the art for what it is, and the artist for having put some element into it that is undesirable, then you have to look at what they intended.
Your mistake is that any one school of criticism is any more or less "valid" than any other. The only "invalid" criticism is one you can't support from the text.
Your first mistake is thinking they can't be questioned, when they certainly can. The second was not recognizing that you were making an interpretation that was not supported from the text. As an analogy, you specifically judged Romeo and Juliet, from watching Shakespeare in Love and any of its sequals.
What's worse, you continued to defend your analysis despite the mounds of evidence Arach was handing you to the contrary.

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 110 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 3:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 5:31 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 113 of 147 (195529)
03-30-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
03-30-2005 4:13 PM


Back to Square One, Apparently
Just because something is associated with a sex, does NOT mean it is associated with gender.
I wasn't sure what other word to use. If you want to use "man/woman" for sex, and "jwre/zxpcoi" for the personifications of masculine and feminine genders, whatever. You know I hate talking about what words mean. The problem here is that, despite our recognition of the distinction between sex and gender, this is not a distinction to which language has quite caught up.
Men may rape more than women, but that does not inherently make rape a masculine characteristic.
What makes it a masculine characteristic is that its most commonly associated with males. In other words, if I say "think of a rapist", most people are going to think of a man.
I mean, this may be an unfortunate occurance, and it's probably in some cases a self-fulfilling prophecy that we associate maleness with rape and sexual violence, but that's a question of social policy.
We're not doing that. We're just describing things, not advocating things. Or I was, anyway.
That kind of reasoning can also be used to implicate evolutionary theory as nihilistic and eugenical because the intentions of the scientists mean little compared to how the "audience" percieves it.
Some people are going to interpret The Origin of Species, or even Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory as nihilistic or whatever. Those are valid interpretations of those texts, presuming that they can support them from the text.
You conflate, however, the meanings the audience recieves from the text with the text itself. Those are two different things; meaning is contained in our heads, not in texts. Texts are just words (or pictures or sound, or whatever.) The meaning is something we get for ourselves, from ourselves.
It's like the old joke. "What does it say? It doesn't say anything. You have to read it." Do you see what I mean, yet?
Yes people can take something away from any work that the creator had not intended. One can criticize the effect that the art had then, though the blame would then be on the audience and not on the art.
That's an unfortunate equivocation on the term "criticism", and that's either an unfortunately unavoidable choice of words on your part, or you don't quite understand what we're doing here when I say that we're applying methods/schools of "criticism" to something.
If it wanted to be logically consistent it would be critiquing the audiences for what they take from the art, rather than the art or the artist.
If you want to critique the art for what it is, and the artist for having put some element into it that is undesirable, then you have to look at what they intended.
I guess it was the second thing. I'm not here to "critique", I'm here to apply methods of criticism to come away with interpretations that I can support from the text.
That's it. That's all I'm here to do. This is a descriptive process, not advocacy of policy or judgement of outcome.
The second was not recognizing that you were making an interpretation that was not supported from the text. As an analogy, you specifically judged Romeo and Juliet, from watching Shakespeare in Love and any of its sequals.
I'm pretty sure that, in fact, I've recognized this. Ok? I can only speak from what I know, and I wasn't aware that it was such a fucking big deal to the fanboys that the alien's life cycle has gone through such sigificant revision in the subsequent movies. Jesus.
What's worse, you continued to defend your analysis despite the mounds of evidence Arach was handing you to the contrary.
Sorry, I was too busy trying to convince Arach I wasn't calling him a rapist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 4:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 5:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 114 of 147 (195538)
03-30-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by pink sasquatch
03-30-2005 3:39 PM


Re: academia in the mainstream
Disclaimer: As you might know history and politics is not my area of knowledge but I thought I might say a few words. As most of this is based on a history of Britain by Simon Schama and a few scant conversations with more clued up friends, feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my orange furry arse.
Citing a grade-school teacher as an "academic" in the same sense as the modern feminist academic movement is more than a stretch.
To dismiss the mother of Mary Shelley as just another grade-school teacher might be stretching it a bit too. Mary Wollstonecraft had some quite policically academic male contempories, such as Tom Paine, and married William Godwin, who is described (in dis book wot I'm readin') as a social philosopher. Her publications were direct, and scathing attacks on the type of justification for subjugation, that was being spouted at the time. While she may not have been a lecturer in 'woman studies' at suchandsuch college , I think it's safe to class her as an academic of her time.
The problem I see with trying to define academic feminism in those times was that it seems to be closely interwoven with a general push towards greater rights for all. So while it's easy to see how such characters played an important role in changing public opinion of the time, it's harder to confidently label anyone as a 'feminist'.
As for the effect of the Germaine Greers of this world today, well that is a whole different kettle of fish.
I would probably say that because the general concepts from the early days of equalitarian ideas are now so very well accepted in society, then 'academics' can't possibily have the same type of impact:
Academic: "All women..."
Society: "Yes, yes. We're working on it!!"
JMHO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-30-2005 3:39 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 9:42 PM Ooook! has not replied

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


Message 115 of 147 (195568)
03-30-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ooook!
03-30-2005 7:34 PM


Re: academia in the mainstream
thank you.
<3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ooook!, posted 03-30-2005 7:34 PM Ooook! has not replied

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


Message 116 of 147 (195600)
03-30-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
03-30-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Back to Square One, Apparently
well it's a very sad thing that you don't like defining words, because the v ery first step in real discourse is to define terms so that no one is getting lost in trying to dig out their connotations dictionary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 5:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 117 of 147 (195606)
03-30-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by macaroniandcheese
03-30-2005 9:35 AM


OK, I retract "overrun".
That populist feminism reflects some academic feminist ideas is not surprising.
Gender is different from sex. That makes a lot of sense and is a useful, though limited, idea.
That's one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 9:35 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-31-2005 12:01 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 118 of 147 (195607)
03-31-2005 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
03-30-2005 11:57 PM


go with that. i'm sure you could come up with more. it took me 5 posts to get that one across and i have a headache.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 03-30-2005 11:57 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 119 of 147 (195655)
03-31-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
03-30-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Back to Square One, Apparently
The problem here is that, despite our recognition of the distinction between sex and gender, this is not a distinction to which language has quite caught up.
Again with the strawman. In understood what you said. It appears you are replying to my posts line by line, because you keep making mistakes which appear only possible by assuming everything I mean has already been said.
You need to read my posts through first, to see if I clarify something. It should have been obvious in the very next lines I wrote that I was not making the mistake you are addressing above.
What makes it a masculine characteristic is that its most commonly associated with males. In other words, if I say "think of a rapist", most people are going to think of a man.
That is totally untrue. That is necessary, but not always sufficient.
I agree someone can have it as both and thus rapist would be masculine. But for many, and I would argue most, while it would be necessary it is not sufficient, and so would be excluded from "masculine".
Again when one thinks of spousal abuse, one thinks of a man hitting a woman. I think its a clear majority that do NOT view a man hitting a woman as a masculine thing to do, in fact quite the contrary. We just had a controversial general explain he enjoyed killing Taliban members because they hit women and were less than real men. I think that reflects an intuitive feeling most have in US culture.
That's an unfortunate equivocation on the term "criticism", and that's either an unfortunately unavoidable choice of words on your part, or you don't quite understand what we're doing here when I say that we're applying methods/schools of "criticism" to something.
Interesting that you should view it as an equivocation on my part. I wonder then if perhaps feminists are not equivocating as well, or if you are in treating feminist critique as if it is like this other "general" criticism of art.
Feminist critique not only establishes a way to view a work, but specifically sets it up as a criticism of the piece of art as well as the artist.
It may be possible to define some criticism as essentially only building a way of viewing a work of art, but that is not where common feminist critiques end.
I can only speak from what I know, and I wasn't aware that it was such a fucking big deal to the fanboys that the alien's life cycle has gone through such sigificant revision in the subsequent movies. Jesus.
You can't chalk it all up to simply stepping on fan boys's sacred cows. I started out quite neutral until you stepped on me personally, and then continued to use strawmen against my position.
He started by telling you what he was talking about, and you felt you could criticize what he was talking about despite never having seen what he was talking about. He then tried to show you evidence from that subject, and you refused to look!
You don't get to now retreat into "I can only talk about what I know". The point was you couldn't know, Arach showed you what you could know, and yet you continued to deny it.
This really shouldn't have been this serious, and Arach did get overheated, but you have to recognize your culpability in maintaining a defense of a position which was clearly untenable, even in the face of evidence.
He might have ended up acting like a fanboy, and a little too sensitive about feminist critique, but you were being overly obstinate.

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 113 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 5:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2005 10:46 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 120 of 147 (195717)
03-31-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
03-31-2005 5:11 AM


Re: Back to Square One, Apparently
Again with the strawman. In understood what you said. It appears you are replying to my posts line by line, because you keep making mistakes which appear only possible by assuming everything I mean has already been said.
You need to read my posts through first, to see if I clarify something. It should have been obvious in the very next lines I wrote that I was not making the mistake you are addressing above.
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? Can we stop speaking in riddles, now? If you think that I've made an error, would it be possible for you to just come out and say what it was?
Again when one thinks of spousal abuse, one thinks of a man hitting a woman. I think its a clear majority that do NOT view a man hitting a woman as a masculine thing to do, in fact quite the contrary.
I'm not really convinced that's a relevant point. 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.
I wonder then if perhaps feminists are not equivocating as well, or if you are in treating feminist critique as if it is like this other "general" criticism of art.
It is. 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.
Now, a lot of the time people who do this take the next step; they judge those gender roles and advocate policy. But I'm not here to do that right now, and I think I've made that pretty clear, right?
I started out quite neutral until you stepped on me personally, and then continued to use strawmen against my position.
When did it get personal? I'm direct, yes, because otherwise miscommunication happens. (Especially with you. We tend to talk right past each other, for some reason.)
The point was you couldn't know, Arach showed you what you could know, and yet you continued to deny it.
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" (not, obviously, direct quotes). Most of my conversation with him was actually explaining what my position was. He refuted many, many things, but none of them were the position I was trying to argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 5:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2005 5:16 AM crashfrog 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