Feminism, patriarchy, waves, etc. [Archive]

jake williams

14th January 2008, 21:59

I said I'd separate a thread out of the "movement's inherent sexism", here it is:

Hell, maybe even almost all feminism has a strong patriarchalist bent.

Please substantiate this extremely controversial statement.

Will do. I can go into the details specifically later, but look up what the early feminists were saying, like, 1910, second-wave feminism, all that. The general point is that a great deal of feminism for historical reasons contextualizes itself within a patriarchal society, there's a great deal of separate-but-equalism.

I look forward to reading it.

As for the rest of your post... I'm familiar with the history of anglophone feminisms and i must (again) disagree; the claim that this (even broadly speaking) is a history of 'separate-but-equalism' does not square with this history (of some feminists and periods of anglophone feminism sure) and would be rebuked by most feminists (particularly socialist feminists).

However, even many liberal feminists oppose a 'separate-but-equal' mentality, though their views are necessarily less radical in this regard than that of most 'second-wave' (not to mention more contemporary anglophone feminisms) and socialist feminists.

Indeed beyond 'first-wave feminism' i think the history (and nature) of anglophone feminisms is up for debate (and thus not easily reduced to statements along the lines of 'X is a history of Y'); due largely to the heterogeneous nature of the subject (anglophone 'feminism').

Undoubtedly the majority of feminisms are contextualised within a patriarchal society; in the same way that most communisms are contextualised within a capitalist society; it is very difficult to intellectually transcend one's particular period of time, society and so forth - to escape the intellectual trends, constructs and ideologies of our time.
I don't think that makes systems of knowledge constructed within a class (or patriarchal) society useless or otherwise fatally flawed - as long as we remain open-minded about the future and critical (as well conscious of the impact class society et al has on the development of our ideas) these issues can be addressed effectively (to the best of our ability?).

jake williams

15th January 2008, 10:40

Ya know, if you asked, as a super-duper mod i could have physically split our posts into a new topic... just for future reference :);)
Aye, good to know, thanks.

Alright. First off, I really do basically agree with what you're saying.

As for the rest of your post... I'm familiar with the history of anglophone feminisms and i must (again) disagree; the claim that this (even broadly speaking) is a history of 'separate-but-equalism' does not square with this history (of some feminists and periods of anglophone feminism sure)...

My understanding and knowledge of the history of international feminism has huge gaps and weaknesses, but it isn't slight either. And really, no cultural chauvinism - but as I understand it, the history of modern feminism at least largely started in the anglophone West.

Now, to a fairly big extent I am talking about "some periods and some feminists" - of course, as I find myself saying again and again to all kinds of people, for just about every conceivable view you could come up with on anything about anything, you'll find at least two people, one who vigorously opposes it and one who vigorously defends it, both of whom call it "feminism". The diversity of opinion among those called "feminists" is almost infinite. Sure.

But in general I'm talking, specifically, about the sort of late-19th/early-20th century, immediately post-Victorian Anglo-American feminism. And I do have to clarify - much of my understanding of feminism and feminist history is general impressions I've gotten from all kinds of sources for most of my life, so most of what I'm saying here is, even more than usual in these sorts of discussions, approximation.

Anyway, this group at least, in this period, and it isn't a trivial group either - this was the seed of much to follow, especially in the popular understanding and not just among the activists and intellectuals, which is of course critical - there was, yes, a lot of separate-but-equalism. There was the idea that women had specific, "natural" roles and characters and that these needed to be given respect by society. Partly, I think, these women went into their work with these ideas because in no small part they were powerful ideas in the ambient society anyway, but they did play a big role in creating and promoting them too.

...and would be rebuked by most feminists (particularly socialist feminists).

About this I'm not totally sure - the statistical question that this view is not held by "most feminists". And partly, I'm not totally sure how important it is, ie. is the specific question, "Do 40% or 60% of feminists hold X view" too important.

Further, like I sort of hit on a bit ^, we do have to distinguish a bit between activist-intellectual feminists, people actively and attentively reading and learning and analyzing, and writing and speaking and developing ideas and promoting ideas and denouncing ideas and fighting and so forth - and people in general. There is a distinction, and I think the whole separate-but-equal thing is far more predominant in the general society. In my analysis of "feminism" I consider as maybe the most important to be the views of "average women", and average people about feminism.

And even so, is it a majority view? Maybe, even probably not, and if I gave that impression I'm probably incorrect, whether it was error in communication or thinking I forget. But it's definitely an important one, especially historically.

However, even many liberal feminists oppose a 'separate-but-equal' mentality, though their views are necessarily less radical in this regard than that of most 'second-wave' (not to mention more contemporary anglophone feminisms) and socialist feminists.

Indeed beyond 'first-wave feminism' i think the history (and nature) of anglophone feminisms is up for debate (and thus not easily reduced to statements along the lines of 'X is a history of Y'); due largely to the heterogeneous nature of the subject (anglophone 'feminism').

Of course. Again, diversity of opinion and all that. If I gave the impression that "Every feminist/woman is X and believes X", then of course that would be patently absurd. I was saying something far more along the lines of "The general character of the history of the 'feminism' with which I'm familiar is heavily influenced by X".

Undoubtedly the majority of feminisms are contextualised within a patriarchal society; in the same way that most communisms are contextualised within a capitalist society; it is very difficult to intellectually transcend one's particular period of time, society and so forth - to escape the intellectual trends, constructs and ideologies of our time.

I think we have to be careful here. One on hand, you can have movements which are based in a certain historic period, and are opposed to the dominant ideology, but are because of this dominance shaped by this ideology, and importantly their opposition to it. I think that's something that, while not totally ignored, isn't talked about enough - that a movement, an idea opposed to dominant ideology is shaped by their opposition, it heavily affects the character of the movement, even the new ideas.

I do think, however, that that's a bit of a separate thing from a movement that whole-heartedly internalizes the basic operating assumptions of the dominant society, that feels like it's correcting some unnatural fault in that society rather than opposing it outright. And I do think that's the general character of, yes, historical anglophone feminism.

I don't think that makes systems of knowledge constructed within a class (or patriarchal) society useless or otherwise fatally flawed - as long as we remain open-minded about the future and critical (as well conscious of the impact class society et al has on the development of our ideas) these issues can be addressed effectively (to the best of our ability?).

Oh, I'm definitely not saying "...so feminism should be soundly discarded."
I'm saying this: historically, important feminist currents have had, been influenced by but also had, these ideas; these ideas aren't too good, and further they should colour our reading of what's happening; (but nevertheless, they did extremely important work, and we can and have taken a lot from what they did). It's important though, and it isn't an entirely historical, academic thing, it's completely relevant, it's just not a fatal blow to everything they might or might have come up with.