|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what is feminism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Uh, ALL chaps are assless, crashy. Take it from someone who has worn them for the purpose they were originally meant for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
haha yeah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
*sigh*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024