Excellent Feminist Essay

[Moskitto]

http://www.goddess.org/sabrina/femininefem.html

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Feminism is a very poor social theory.

You'd think it would be easy to create such a theory as we do live in a patriarchal society which is unfair on women..

But feminism as a theory is so fragmented, so deterministic, so simplistic and not very educated.

[RedFW]

I wasn't too impressed by the essay. I felt that is was saying it is okay to feminist so long as you are feminine and enjoy sex with men. Both of these of course describe lots of women who are feminists, but it also excludes quite a lot of women as well. Some feminists feel liberated by not conforming to a feminine identity, one which is constructed and is not really how they identify anyway. There are also many feminists who are lesbians. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that by this person saying we are not all big, hairy, man-hating lesbians or women who think all sex is rape, as a way of justifying feminism, excludes and denigrates quite a lot of women, which is the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be fighting for. Feminism is about ensuring women are not excluded based on sexuality, race, class, appearance (gender?), not excluding those very women in a bid to make feminism palatable to people, IME usually men, who are offended or feel threatended by women who do not conform to neatly packaged gender roles that are masculine and feminine or sexualities that are heterosexual or bisexual.

Feminism is a very poor social theory...But feminism as a theory is so fragmented, so deterministic, so simplistic and not very educated.

Feminist theory is variegated. Which feminist theory are you referring to specifically?

[Conghaileach]

I did a bit of exploring on that site, and found thuis interesting comment...

Almost all of the Egyptian queens were High Priestesses of the Goddess, up until Cleopatra. She was the 369th in a line of which I am 537th High Priestess.


The woman strikes me as a bit of a psycho. I have to admit as well that I felt a little disheartened when she started talking about how a man could never satisfy a woman.

[RedFW]

I just had another look, and I think, as Redstar2000 pointed out in another thread, the use of 'femi-nazi' cannot help but connote Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps Conservatives in America are hoping to refashion the white, heterosexual, conservative woman as a 'feminine feminist'? It wouldn't be the first time they have attempted it. I think it all began with ifeminism.

I have to admit as well that I felt a little disheartened when she started talking about how a man could never satisfy a woman.

She says that, but for some reason she says it after she admits to having 300 orgasms with 16 men counted by an unamed observer.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from RedFW on 8:49 am on May 21, 2003
I wasn't too impressed by the essay. I felt that is was saying it is okay to feminist so long as you are feminine and enjoy sex with men. Both of these of course describe lots of women who are feminists, but it also excludes quite a lot of women as well. Some feminists feel liberated by not conforming to a feminine identity, one which is constructed and is not really how they identify anyway. There are also many feminists who are lesbians. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that by this person saying we are not all big, hairy, man-hating lesbians or women who think all sex is rape, as a way of justifying feminism, excludes and denigrates quite a lot of women, which is the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be fighting for. Feminism is about ensuring women are not excluded based on sexuality, race, class, appearance (gender?), not excluding those very women in a bid to make feminism palatable to people, IME usually men, who are offended or feel threatended by women who do not conform to neatly packaged gender roles that are masculine and feminine or sexualities that are heterosexual or bisexual.

Feminism is a very poor social theory...But feminism as a theory is so fragmented, so deterministic, so simplistic and not very educated.

Feminist theory is variegated. Which feminist theory are you referring to specifically?


I was referring to feminism as a whole. Obviously, you are right in saying it is variegated. But it is this fragmentation of the perspective that makes it so weak I feel. Radical feminism, Marxist feminism, Socialist feminism, Liberal feminism etc.... It all seems so weak. But it shouldn't be. The point is correct, it's just structured so poorly by feminists.

Feminists will slaughter me for that! Just my opinon.

[RedFW]

I think it is precisely this fragmentation of perspective that is its strength. Feminism is fighting against a uniform perspective that has been constructed for women and seeks to include, at least has more recently, the perspectives of women, which will inevitably be different. 'Women' used to mean only, white, middle-class, heterosexual women and through feminism has been expanded to include black women, lesbian women and women workers. And of course not all feminists agree with the inclusions and exclusions.

If you are going to say that feminism offers a 'poor social theory, which theory do you have in mind, feminist, book etc?

If you are also going to say that feminism is 'so fragmented, so deterministic, so simplistic and not very educated', then would you mind explaining why the fragmenation is negative, what you mean by deterministic and simplistic (which feminist are you thinking of and aren't you contradicting yourself when you say it is simplistic but fragmented and variegated?), and what do you mean by not educated, are the feminists themselves not educated, if this is what you are arguing then what do you define as educated enough to justify criticising the gender and class oppression one has experienced?

What do you mean when you say that the different strands of feminism make feminism seem so weak? And I am not arguing that I totally disagree, that is a concern I hear a lot from other feminists, but one that is starting to be addressed as American policy becomes more Conservative. Does having a single theory or strand of feminism, if it excludes more women than it includes make feminism stronger? I don't think it does. I think it offers a facade of unity which leaves one group in control of it and working for them, which is not too far removed from the way I see capitalism working.

And finally, what do you mean by poorly structered by feminists? Does following a rigid structure necessarily mean that eliminating gender and class oppression will come any easier? And who gets to decide how it is structured, who is in control of ensuring that structure is followed by other women? And what happens if the structure needs changing? The way in which feminists organised themselves during their campaign for suffrage would not be appropriate now.

I know I seem to be asking too many questions, but I find I disagree with the generalisations you have made about feminism and would really appreciate it if you would clarify exactly what you mean.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well, if someone says, "I'm a Marxist"...you know the fundamental aspects of their belief. If someone says "I'm a functionalist"...you know the fundamental aspects of their belief. Ditto Pluralist. But someone tells you they are feminist, that could mean bloody anything. There's no structure to feminism as a whole.

The person who tells you they are a feminist could be for a complete overthrow of the alleged patriarchal
system....

At the same time it could be the same as the above, whilst overthrowing the capitalist system at he same time....

At the same time, that person could be for a grdual reform of the system to make it more female friendly and equal....

At the same time they could be for a change not int he system but in women themselves....

At the same time they could believe that women need to create a stronger identity of "woman" than that of "man"....

There's so many different branches that feminism is just one big confused theory. I did not mean to use the word "uneducated". I'm notsure why I used it. It's just so unstructured. Like you said, you could argue that that is a strong point. But I don't see it that way. It makes it weaker in my opinion. Or, rather, it makes one branch stronger or weaker than another which results in the theory as a whole being weak as there's no feminist unity as such.

[Moskitto]

After reading this more, particularly the blatent sexual tones of the whole site, I am revising my opinion, I think I posted this as a result of seeing Hazards post basically labeling all feminists as femi-nazis.

[Conghaileach]

Guerrilla Girls (http://www.guerrillagirls.com/)

This is a good website.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that any revolutionary theory begins with some basic convictions about the nature of the existing social order and then proliferates rather wildly into explorations of the possible meanings, further conclusions, new paths of research, etc.

In this respect, at least for the moment, feminism rather has the advantage on Marxism; too many "Marxists" are still worshipping at Lenin's tomb and far too few are trying to recapture the actual ways that Marx and Engels themselves looked at the complexities of capitalism and the revolutionary process.

Naturally, I think the future lies with socialist feminists and Marxist feminists...but the present ferment doesn't bother me at all; it's part of the process that insurgencies of any kind go through.

What does bother me is the term "femi-nazi"...no matter who uses it. It has no basis in history (the Nazis themselves were consistently anti-feminist) and was coined, I think, as an attack on rebellious women, pure and simple. There is ample critical vocabularly to use in distinguishing between various strands of feminist theory; the term "femi-nazi" is not needed and serves no useful purpose that I can see.

I suggest that we drop it.

:cool:

[Valkyrie]

Women as a whole and individually are very powerful -- they just don't believe it themselves yet. In this era, developed societies could no longer function if women gave up their positions and went back to the homestead. I think men realize the value of women in society as more than just sex objects or washing machines or servants. It is completely up to women now to learn to TAKE what is entitled to them and stop waiting around for it to be given them. Especially in the work environment.

I recently undertook a self-initiated women's study and read a whole slew of feminist literature covering all the periods of feminism. The conclusion seems to indicate that there has always been a fragmented movement and an opposition By woman towards the basic tenants of feminism-- that of equality, in the respect that the opposition thinks that certain schools of feminism "broadsides" and defeminizes women or takes them away from their biological role as women. This was seen frequently during the early days of the birth-control revolution of Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman fighting against the 1873 Comstack law, when both woman and men would show up at informational meetings to cause a fierce disturbances.

Then continuing on in the "Second-wave", radical feminism as it has come to be known, led by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. though had less overt public outcry but more governmental opposition whilst the Supreme Court was hearing cases based on sexual discrimination, abortion rights, etc. Betty Friedan was "Homemaker" but little known fact, also a communist activist and was sent out by the communist party as spokesperson to push the cause for the rights of women. This again caused a fragmentation, as some of the feminists thought that fighting on the same ground as men meant that they would see them dollar for dollar at the corporate level. If a man could own a corporation, then too, could a women, and nothing was going to stop her. This of course, is contrary to socialist theory.

The third-wave of feminism has brought even more fragmentations and discontent within the bra-burning vanguard and their resentment that their daugthers have had it easy resting on the acheivements of those that had come before them and not being able to persistently carve out their own agenda.

Which comes to a book I was reading recently. There is a whole other fragmented group of women who consider themselves feminist too, call them soccer moms for lack of a better term, and who say the Feminist movement does not represent their goals at all as mothers and wives and working people, as the traditional feminist school of thought, has made it hard for them to fight for things like maternity leave and arranging their work schedule to accomodate their children's schedules, or for the fact that if they do take a maternity leave, they are seen as less ambitious than their childless counterparts and also have a hard time getting back on the work track.

Then there's Tammy Bruce . Don't know if you are familiar with that one. She is a leftist turn-coat-cum-writer who has thrown her pot in with the conservatives. Why? Who knows. She must have had a falling out with NOW because in the early to mid 90's she was the President of the Los Angeles NOW(National Org. of Women) chapter and is now hell bent on writing scathing trashing books against things like Affirmative Action, the Feminist Movement and how freedom of speech is being undermined by the "leftist McCarthy movement" though she is pro-choice and claims to be pro-feminist, pro-women at the same time..yet again she's very good friends with Laura Scheslinger. How that happened is baffling really. But, she would look you dead in the eyes and tell you that she's as much a feminist as Bell Hooks is. Here's a little bio about her.

So, I would have to agree that the Feminist Movement is fragmented in uniting under one common goal. and that somtimes women are their own and others women's worst enemies.

Here's a good essay entitled Women struggling for Socialism.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/.../women/ws_6.htm (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/women/ws_6.htm)

and another:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Exhibi...rthcontrol.html (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Exhibition/birthcontrol.html)










(Edited by Paris at 9:29 am on May 22, 2003)

[Valkyrie]

Here's the bio of the mixed-up Tammy Bruce and her book "The New Thought Police - Inside the Left's assualt on free speech and free thought"

http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/bios/Bruce-bio.shtml

[Valkyrie]

I agree that the term Nazi-feminism should be shelved and is very discrediting to women in general. I think the term Nazi-feminism has come from meaning a more militant-type of feminism that is non-compromising. I think Nazi-Fem has defenitely been deployed to the vocabulary by the reactionary agents of society.


(Edited by Paris at 5:48 am on May 22, 2003)

[Valkyrie]

Some Feminism links

http://home.att.net/~celesten/2ndwave.html

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/enin.html

http://www.feminist.org/research/chronicle...les/fc1953.html (http://www.feminist.org/research/chronicles/fc1953.html)

http://www.womens-studies.ohio-state.edu/p...g/timeline.html (http://www.womens-studies.ohio-state.edu/pedagogy/teaching/timeline.html)

[RedFW]

Well, if someone says, "I'm a Marxist"...you know the fundamental aspects of their belief.

I don't agree. I think you are holding feminism to a higher standard than Marxism. I know from what I have seen at this board alone that two people can both call themselves Marxists, which, as Redstar said, they share 'some basic convictions about the nature of the existing social order and then proliferates rather wildly into explorations of the possible meanings, further conclusions, new paths of research, etc.' I think the same is applicable to feminism.

And the scenarios you offered could be applied to many of the people on this board who call themselves Marxists. Some are for reform of the current system, some want to abolish the system, some feel the workers need to be liberated, some believe workers should liberate themselves.

If you are going to say that feminism is 'so unstructured', could you answer the questions I asked in my last post:

Does following a rigid structure necessarily mean that eliminating gender and class oppression will come any easier?

And who gets to decide how it is structured, who is in control of ensuring that structure is followed by other women? And what happens if the structure needs changing?

Does having a single theory or strand of feminism, if it excludes more women than it includes make feminism stronger, or any theory for that matter?

What do you mean by deterministic and simplistic (which feminist are you thinking of and aren't you contradicting yourself when you say it is simplistic but fragmented and variegated?)

Naturally, I think the future lies with socialist feminists and Marxist feminists...but the present ferment doesn't bother me at all; it's part of the process that insurgencies of any kind go through.

I completely agree with this, and I think recent events have made a lot of women who are feminists make the choice between reforms to the system, which cannot ensure lasting equality or replacing that system with one that is from its foundations equal.

And I agree with dropping 'femi-nazi', too.

I think the feminist that I most agree with would be Lynne Segal, who is a socialist feminist.

[Kez]

on the topic of Feminism

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marx_vs_fem1.html
and
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marx_vs_fem2.html

comrade kamo