Discussion in 'Community' started by blubeast1237, Aug 1, 2014.
I'm surprised we haven't awaken Him yet.
hmmm im glad i asked for a definition. my view of power feminism is that its kind of a dismissive term for the view of feminism, either radical or more "sarah palin is a REAL feminist!!"y, wherein the measure of a woman's feminism is how "independent" she is by way of her career achievements.
this is criticized as flawed because it essentially plays the patriarchy's game rather than meaningfully challenging the existing social order. master's tools cannot bring down the master's house etc etc (audre lorde, along with angie davis and bell hooks, are the main "canonical" feminist thinkers that i've actually sat down and read directly)
Just out of curiosity, what would the result of feminism be if it did bring down the master(patriarchy) house? If the goal is to tear down the current world, what actually would it be replaced with?
well, as has been talked about previously, there's a ton of contrasting views about what is possible/should be sought
I have a friend who is super feminist, and I'm not going to say this is true for ALL FEMINISTS, but her husband is now a woman.
This is a true story. It could happen to YOU.
Feminism is whatever ASO, SLG or GenAntilles thinks it is.
I don't think I have the authority, nor should I be given the authority, to make such a judgement.
I don't know what is so damn complicated about the idea of treating men and women as equal citizens under the law.
It doesn't require replacing the current world, or at least it shouldn't.
Whoa wait what do I have to do with anything.
"If we put a woman on the dollar bill, it would only be worth 77 cents."- Stephen Colbert
lawl danthe whatchu doin here
Well, what Rogue is getting at is the notion in fields like sociology and schools of thought like feminist and queer theory that because of the way power structures are situated in societies it's really difficult to overhaul them from within the power structure, so you have to figure out some way, linguistically and ideologically, to get outside of it, so that you can actually change up the dynamics in a meaningful way.
Basically, there are schools of feminist theory that maintain that "mere" egalitarianism (As we currently would perceive it from inside our patriarchal society) isn't going to cut the mustard, because the way the entire argument is set up it is caught within the power structure. I dunno, I think Maik is of the literalist bent on that question - I'm of the opinion that it makes sense but it's more of a metaphorical position of constant reevaluation. There's also, of course, the classic "But that's po-mo BS" which I'm sure isn't unpopular - there's not really a good way of judging which position is "better."
Edit: Which is not, I should add, to say that there's anything wrong about your thought that men and women ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. I absolutely agree. But, y'know, I'm also sympathetic to post-Marxists so for me that's kind of like "Well if you insist on sticking to this capitalist thing."
im not sure im entirely following you, Ramza but if i understand you correctly than i would agree that constant reevaluation is what is needed. as ive expounded at length in past threads, there is no "end of history", life is processual, (for societies as well as individuals), and stories we tell ourselves about goals of liberalism or conservatism or Liberalism or marxism or feminism or whatever else are goals to strive towards, directions to move in, not absolutes we have a snowball's chance in hell of ever realizing in toto
from the obverse perspective, patriarchy (for feminists), capitalism (for marxists), "liberalism" (for conservatives) etc are concepts for grouping and understanding tendencies that must be fought against, rejected, or moved away from, they are not tangible entities to be dismantled with a pickaxe (or hammer )
It just set up the joke at the end there. <3
Well, I've had a few.
I definitely misread you, because I'd agree to that. My point would perhaps be, then, that you ought to reconsider those goals as history progresses - we've got a weird tendency to get hung up on specifics as a species.
well yes, the whole point i think of viewing these things as directions to move in, aside from making them less prone to distortion by absolutist thinking, is that the picture (and therefore norms, policies, personal codes of conduct, etc) changes as you move along
Sounds good to me, then.
So would there be anything wrong with a viewpoint of just treating everyone you meet with respect and kindness. As well as accommodating for their individual needs and preferences to the best of your ability? Is that acceptable or should you be doing more or something different?
This is the dullest thread ever.
There is no possible way to mix treating a group of people as second-class citizens based on their chromosomes and treating people with respect and kindness.
Those two concepts do not go together at all.
wannasee: laziest troll ever.
Well yeah obviously. I'm not sure what point your trying to make though.
As long as you understand that the point is obvious...it's not directed at you.
My basic stance on this is that while I'm all for women being treated with the same level of respect and dignity as men across the board, I'm also against the tyrannical "anti-patriarchy" mindset. Generally speaking, a lot of women were fed a lie decades ago, that said in order to be as respected as the opposite sex, they had to behave like the most disreputable and disgraceful men. Over time, more women started resenting and hating men with a fiery passion, viewing us as an enemy to be crushed instead of an equal partner in life. Simultaneously, the more selfish among men started using the behavior of what I call "radical feminism" as an excuse to give up, and do nothing for anyone but themselves. Hateful "feminazis" saw that as a sign of weakness, which only fueled their misguided rage. And so, the "broken record" keeps spinning, because neither side among the radicals wants to put aside their anger first.