HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » Is this a good group for ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:52 PM

Is this a good group for feminism as a historical theory?

...to talk about things like gender as a constructed identity, the nature of agency, cultural hegemony, knowledge and power, and writers like Judith Butler, Kathleen Brown, Edward Said, and Joan Scott?

30 replies, 2010 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is this a good group for feminism as a historical theory? (Original post)
Deep13 Dec 2012 OP
seabeyond Dec 2012 #1
Deep13 Dec 2012 #2
seabeyond Dec 2012 #3
Deep13 Dec 2012 #4
seabeyond Dec 2012 #5
mzteris Dec 2012 #13
Deep13 Dec 2012 #18
seabeyond Dec 2012 #22
Deep13 Dec 2012 #27
mzteris Dec 2012 #30
LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #6
ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #7
zazen Dec 2012 #8
eridani Dec 2012 #9
seabeyond Dec 2012 #10
boston bean Dec 2012 #11
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #12
ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #14
boston bean Dec 2012 #15
ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #16
boston bean Dec 2012 #17
seabeyond Dec 2012 #24
boston bean Dec 2012 #25
seabeyond Dec 2012 #23
seabeyond Dec 2012 #20
ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #28
seabeyond Dec 2012 #29
Deep13 Dec 2012 #19
boston bean Dec 2012 #21
Deep13 Dec 2012 #26

Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:03 PM

1. ok. lol. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:16 PM

2. So it is, then?



Frankly, to understand why there is a patriarchy and why some people who are in no way part of the power structure seem so invested in it, is a pretty important part of figuring out how to dismantle that patriarchy. It's not a question of men versus women, but a question of cultural, gender norms that are adopted implicitly as part of our gender identities. Most Western men for instance have no idea that they see the world through a lens of misogynistic assumptions and will take offense and deny it if you suggest it. And they are not alone. Many women carry and reproduce those same patriarchal norms without knowing it. That's why there has been such a backlash on the recent discussion of rape culture. Most people are simply unaware that it exists and react with anger when the cultural narrative that informs their gender identities is challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:23 PM

3. i couldnt agree with you more. yes we discuss that here. we have had some pretty interesting

articles discussing this.

but yes, this is one of my favorite discussions, our behaviors and why. the conditioning. and getting beyond the conditioning. there is a fear of loss, but ultimately, once done there is such a freedom and one realizes that really nothing was lost, all was gained. i agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:29 PM

4. groovy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:36 PM

5. i was going to check out the names you gave tomorrow. thanks....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:20 AM

13. bell?

Is that you?

bell hooks coined the phrase white capitalist supremacist patriarchy. She had/has a whole lot to say about feminism as well as race and class,

They all entertwined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzteris (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:08 PM

18. they are indeed.

That was very clear from the readings in our colonial Latin America class this past semester. I have not read Bell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to seabeyond (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 05:11 PM

27. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:42 PM

30. Ir seems you and I

Have much in common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:22 PM

6. Well, I'll be glad to listen and learn anyhow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:40 PM

7. It is

I'd have to dig out some books, but if you'd like it would be fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:47 AM

8. Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy?

Can't recall if her core argument has been debunked. I just remember loving that book.

Still, the most influential to me at the time was Feminism Unmodified by Catherine MacKinnon. Refusing to be a man by John Stoltenberg was great too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:21 AM

9. There are many posts here with links to classic feminist papers

Check them out, and add more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:37 AM

10. ha... so back to the lock thread. this is what i am saying, lol...

you say the two, i say the merge, but reality is even speaking in anger, when said thru the heart it is still love even in anger. so reality is there are not two, but one, and we have the choice of that being thru love (heart) or hate (ego).

just playin with a fun part of life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:26 AM

11. I think discussion surrounding

to talk about things like gender as a constructed identity, the nature of agency, cultural hegemony, knowledge and power


is absolutely welcome here....

What I have learned from others and in my own research, is that some of the theory, is disputed in feminist circles (there are many circles) regarding particular authors, like Judith Butler. They feel her theory regarding sex and gender as culturally and socially constructed is transphobic.

I suggest that discussions, if they stray that way, remain on topic of the particular theory being discussed and that it remains a discussion on theory.

I would prefer our conversations remain respectful, and allow the discussion to take place, but if it is getting to hot, threads will be locked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:42 AM

12. I think Boston Bean said it quite well...

I feel as though as long as we honestly discuss the controversy behind some of these theories-- and fully acknowledge the reasons for the criticism-- this can be constructive.

Thoughtful, critical, yet respectful discussion is a good thing, but let's try very hard to keep it on an even plain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:28 AM

14. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Butler

But there are a few things she's written I do like. If a healthy debate could happen instead of an argument, that would be fun.

For instance, while I despise Ayn Rand, there was a thread in which a poster referred to her as 'a feminist', that made me cringe. I didn't involve myself in that thread or that discussion, but I have had interesting discussions about Ayn Rand (not at DU).

She had a hell of a background and the how's and whys of how she come to her philosophy is a worthy discussion, but not so much objectivism itself on a Democratic board especially (IMO). Her views on women well are certainly NOT feminist, although she herself was a women a great strength and influence.

This quote in itself is nausea inducing. I see what she's trying to say, but like everything else she's written, it's disturbing in its implications.

Femininity

For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:49 AM

15. ten to one the reason they said she was a feminist

was because ayn rand is pro choice.

However, I have come to find out that being pro choice alone, does not a feminist make.

that's why i don't buy the one liner that feminism is about equal rights for all. It really goes beyond that and it's a state of mind, not just some bullet points of agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:11 PM

16. Exactly

She was an elitist for all her "every man for himself" rhetoric. What I take away from her readings are that she could give two shits less for, say empoverished women.


'Equal rights' has become kind of a catch all phase, one of those phrases that can become meaningless because of what's undefined. I like to use the term (especially for reproductive rights) human rights, because at least there is a framework, although far too often women are just 'assumed' to be included, often in some abstract way instead of addressing specific and very real issues of gender inequities, and the great social danage they cause.

That's where feminism comes in and and one of the reasons feminism is so very important. We've insisted on gender specific language in human rights documents whereever we could and its still a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:39 PM

17. Agreed,

another discussion are the things we do not agree upon.

I may vehemently disagree with another feminist regarding a specific issue. However, that doesn't make one feminist right or the other wrong. Or one a feminist and the other not. it's a disagreement.

However the terms and disagreement are usually respectful, because they are based in some form of understanding of feminism.

But there are many (mostly men, sometimes women) who would like to use those disagreements as a way to define women they disagree with as not a feminist, or divide the movement. It cuts both ways. I just can't stand it when I see it happening.

Like I said before there are really only two things that, at least for me, that are show stoppers and if I consider someone a feminist.

1) they must agree there is a social and cultural built in oppression of women, called the patriarchy..
2) they must be pro choice - that is the epitome of ones agency, and if one is against that, well... you know the drill.

Many other issues that focus on the individual woman and her choices are really personal, where my two examples are of the whole. I think feminism has focused to much on the personal and not the whole, but that's a whole other discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:33 PM

24. pitting one woman against another. in so many ways. a tool used and used for a long time.

at what point will we women not fall for that tool of pittin' one woman against another. we really do not see that in the male gender.

what i see is there can be those disagreements but i find even in that, the divide is not so wide. is is more a level. where one may be opposed to say porn, the others will all be opposed to the harm in objectifying our women. so, we may even see the same harm, but not take it as far as another.

i just really do not see flat out disagreement in any of the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:50 PM

25. you are right, much of it revolves around the degrees

of harm... But there is more than likely a foundation that most agree on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:28 PM

23. i was going to say exactly, but it was taken, so absolutely. i came to the realization myself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:17 PM

20. but is she talking about her father.

and a time when the men accomplish and the women admire and reap the reward ergo, respect (worship). interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:46 PM

28. That's what I mean about her being a worthy discussion

I abhor objectivism, but Rand and her life are kind of fascinating. She would despise modern feminism. I think she would relate more to MRA's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:11 PM

29. agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:09 PM

19. Well, sure, although I don't know how Butler can be seen as transphobic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:22 PM

21. It revolves around her theory of gender performance.

look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 05:10 PM

26. Already read it.

Gender, as opposed to sex, is performed and must constantly be recreated through performance in conformity with that gender norm. So, by implication, someone who is male physically, but feminine mentally will reproduce a feminine gender through performance.

I know she touches on drag performances as an illustrative example and mentions that because of reassignment surgery that sex may not be as static of a category as previously thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread