The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
And related to that, I think the emphasis on 'choice' is pretty superficial, and ignores the way certain choices work to reaffirm oppressive and exploitative norms, laws, institutions, etc. The nature of the choice matters, as does whether or not the choice is really determined by you.
Sexuality stuff gets pretty tricky, because it can both simultaneously break down barriers while reinforcing it. Having said that, I think there is a difference between the way someone like Amanda Palmer uses nudity, and the way someone like Miley Cyrus does.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
Green Habit wrote:
stip wrote:
I never really answered the question that I posed, but here is my definition (which is heavily influenced by Susan Faludi's work and, to a lesser extent, John Stuart Mill's).
A feminist is someone who understands and pushes back against the way in which socially constructed and enforced gender identities prevent us from acting in ways that are human. In particular it pushes back against the 'masculine' ideal of dominance, the 'feminine' idea of ornamentation and display, and the socially enervating hyper individualism that, at this point, probably applies to both.
Feminism is about understanding that human beings need to build and nurture and create, and that their own individual identities are enhanced by the richness of the community they are rooted in.
I like this definition a lot. I do not like stereotypes of both of the sexes. Still, since this philosophy applies to both, it seems odd to call it feminism.
Well it really is a struggle for the liberation of both sexes. It gets called feminism since women, as the more overtly exploited group, are more likely to identify and move against it (or they got to it first). Blacks,women, and other marginal or excluded groups tend to be able to see invisible structures of dominance, inequality, and exploitation because they are more immediately affected by it.
Having said that, in some ways some feminist theory/language has made it harder to include men in this since some of the conceptual vocabulary excludes them--denies them the experience of oppression. Women grasped the problem of ornamentation/objectification pretty effectively. It impacts men too, but since we are in theory (some less sophisticated feminist theory, anyway) the ones doing the oppressing we can't very well also be oppressed. If men run everything they have no reason to feel alienated. And so men don't have a language to articulate what is happening to them as well.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 11:23 pm Posts: 269 Location: By The Sea.
stip wrote:
Sexuality stuff gets pretty tricky, because it can both simultaneously break down barriers while reinforcing it. Having said that, I think there is a difference between the way someone like Amanda Palmer uses nudity, and the way someone like Miley Cyrus does.
Have you seen Amanda Palmer sing the Daily Mail song?
_________________
Strat wrote:
I trust no one who thinks parachutes is a terrible song.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39814 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39814 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
You're probably right. And, if you've ever read any fanfic, it's not even that niche.
JURASSEROTIC PARK
_________________
RisingTides wrote:
There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
malice wrote:
stip, could you please explain this part for me?
and the socially enervating hyper individualism that, at this point, probably applies to both.
I can say more if you want, but the quick version is that we're harmed by a society constructed around the idea that we compete with each other, that we are each other's enemies, that things like happiness and meaning are found and experienced as isolated individuals. It feeds into the emphasis on domination (I prove myself by taking from others, rather than teaching and learning from others) and the emphasis of freedom as choice. I"m free because I get to freely choose who I want to be without being aware of the fact that the choices that matter most (would you rather be able to choose from 8 different flavors of mountain dew or be able to choose to have universal health care, a less poisonous environment, etc.) are taken from us and much of our celebrated individuality is our ability to choose from among any number of accessories provided for and forced upon us by someone else
Our excessive individualism celebrates being able to decorate our cage while blinding us to the fact that we're in a cage, that we're starving to death (literally and spiritually) within it, and makes it so much more difficult for us to begin to conceptualize how to find a way out. A focus on individualism (of which 'choice' is a major component) to the point that it crowds out everything else tends to blind us towards the structures that are responsible for oppression.
That may still be a bit too abstract, but hopefully it's at least a little clearer.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm Posts: 4377 Location: faked by jorge
stip wrote:
malice wrote:
stip, could you please explain this part for me?
and the socially enervating hyper individualism that, at this point, probably applies to both.
I can say more if you want, but the quick version is that we're harmed by a society constructed around the idea that we compete with each other, that we are each other's enemies, that things like happiness and meaning are found and experienced as isolated individuals. It feeds into the emphasis on domination (I prove myself by taking from others, rather than teaching and learning from others) and the emphasis of freedom as choice. I"m free because I get to freely choose who I want to be without being aware of the fact that the choices that matter most (would you rather be able to choose from 8 different flavors of mountain dew or be able to choose to have universal health care, a less poisonous environment, etc.) are taken from us and much of our celebrated individuality is our ability to choose from among any number of accessories provided for and forced upon us by someone else
Our excessive individualism celebrates being able to decorate our cage while blinding us to the fact that we're in a cage, that we're starving to death (literally and spiritually) within it, and makes it so much more difficult for us to begin to conceptualize how to find a way out. A focus on individualism (of which 'choice' is a major component) to the point that it crowds out everything else tends to blind us towards the structures that are responsible for oppression.
That may still be a bit too abstract, but hopefully it's at least a little clearer.
I believe I understand what you're talking about- although I do find it interesting that you include it as part of a more specific reference to feminism - I agree completely with both your assessment of the concept as I understand it, (which, given, isn't as thorough as your understanding, so may be imprecise from me) as well as how it is best addressed- the idea that we're largely controlled while being told we're free, and an imposed concept that individuality is what we're told it is, rather than what we believe it is...
It all makes great sense to me, but I guess based on that explanation (and thanks very much for explaining it) I agree with nick - I'm not sure I'd include it as part of feminism - I'm wondering if feminism is more a sub set of this larger concept instead?
_________________
Dev wrote:
you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
well I don't think feminism is the only philosophy that pushes back against this, and 'choice' feminism probably doesn't care at all. But it is a part of the more robust definition that I like, at any rate
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 11:23 pm Posts: 269 Location: By The Sea.
I'm not sure I'm equipped with the vocabulary for this discussion, but here goes.
Feminism means a lot of different things to different people. To some it's as simple as equal rights for women, economically, educationally, and politically. An equal voice. To others it's about sexual freedoms, reproductive rights, and not being judged by your desire or ability to reproduce. I could keep listing things. To some feminism is about all of this and also other stuff. If you try to see the world in intersectional terms, it throws up whole new debates. Like 'does a black man really have privilege over a white woman? What if the black man is poor and the white woman is rich? What if the white woman is trans*? Is a black hetero man more likely to be oppressed than a white gay woman? Does age have an impact on oppressions?" It becomes apparent that men can and are being oppressed, and so feminism, if we want to discuss these oppressions and where they intersect, has to expand to accept this. It's not just about women fighting the patriarchy anymore. It's everyone, all of us, fighting the kyriarchy.
I call myself an intersectional feminist. And the intersectional bit matters. There was a recent hoo-ha about banning burkas and other types of religious dress with lots of feminists throwing around how oppressive these clothes are to women and that if we ban them they can rise up and suddenly be free. Which is complete bullshit. Women should have the right to wear whatever they like and if wearing a burka, or niqab is what they choose to wear, I cannot be a feminist and condemn that choice. They may choose to wear it because they have to function in a deeply patriarchal society, they may choose to wear it because they feel endangered if they don't, but unless we tackle the underlying issues within the society they live in, and outside of it, banning an item of clothing is unlikely to have a positive impact on their lives. In fact, we may be removing the ability of those women to change their society by and for themselves, if we remove the ability for them to speak in public along with their clothes. In championing my white view of feminism, I'm completely disregarding the idea that they have the strength, ability and desire to be feminists themselves. And that they know a hell of a lot more about what it means to wear a burka than I do.
That's a complete tangent, but I thought it highlighted why intersectionality is important to me. As I said, I don't have all the academic language, so if it comes across as a bit of a disjointed ramble, I apologise.
_________________
Strat wrote:
I trust no one who thinks parachutes is a terrible song.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
the vocabulary is just shorthand. It isn't necessary
plus you used the term intersectional, for fucks sake. and I've never even heard the phrase kyriarchy before just now.
Sarah. wrote:
I'm not sure I'm equipped with the vocabulary for this discussion, but here goes.
Feminism means a lot of different things to different people. To some it's as simple as equal rights for women, economically, educationally, and politically. An equal voice. To others it's about sexual freedoms, reproductive rights, and not being judged by your desire or ability to reproduce. I could keep listing things. To some feminism is about all of this and also other stuff. If you try to see the world in intersectional terms, it throws up whole new debates. Like 'does a black man really have privilege over a white woman? What if the black man is poor and the white woman is rich? What if the white woman is trans*? Is a black hetero man more likely to be oppressed than a white gay woman? Does age have an impact on oppressions?" It becomes apparent that men can and are being oppressed, and so feminism, if we want to discuss these oppressions and where they intersect, has to expand to accept this. It's not just about women fighting the patriarchy anymore. It's everyone, all of us, fighting the kyriarchy.
I call myself an intersectional feminist. And the intersectional bit matters. There was a recent hoo-ha about banning burkas and other types of religious dress with lots of feminists throwing around how oppressive these clothes are to women and that if we ban them they can rise up and suddenly be free. Which is complete bullshit. Women should have the right to wear whatever they like and if wearing a burka, or niqab is what they choose to wear, I cannot be a feminist and condemn that choice. They may choose to wear it because they have to function in a deeply patriarchal society, they may choose to wear it because they feel endangered if they don't, but unless we tackle the underlying issues within the society they live in, and outside of it, banning an item of clothing is unlikely to have a positive impact on their lives. In fact, we may be removing the ability of those women to change their society by and for themselves, if we remove the ability for them to speak in public along with their clothes. In championing my white view of feminism, I'm completely disregarding the idea that they have the strength, ability and desire to be feminists themselves. And that they know a hell of a lot more about what it means to wear a burka than I do.
That's a complete tangent, but I thought it highlighted why intersectionality is important to me. As I said, I don't have all the academic language, so if it comes across as a bit of a disjointed ramble, I apologise.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39815
you got to the core of the problem though
Feminism is about a response to oppression, broadly understood, and you respond to oppression not by superficial fights over things like what you can wear, but by challenging the underlying structures of oppression
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
