|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 25, 2010 12:15:42 GMT -5
I thought I knew what a feminist was, but it appears I am sadly deficient in that area. Can someone tell me what the various schools of feminists are? I had never heard of "third wave" feminists til recently and I don't know what distinguishes one from the first wave.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2010 14:50:13 GMT -5
you probably would get more by googling... as I don't have much time. But there is first wave, second wave, third wave in the US. There is also sex-positive feminism, which is commonly associated with third wave.
There are also feminisms responding to concerns of third world women, or women not in white, western countries.
there are more... but that's a start.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 15:00:43 GMT -5
Yeah, agree that it'd be more useful to you to google these things.
The resources I might recommend would likely be more academic than what you're looking for, but I'll think about this question more and get back to you if I come up with anything good.
That said, you've seemed quite well-read in theology, so I expect philosophy might not be too much of a stretch.
Would you like some philosophical recommendations in these various schools of feminism?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 15:08:55 GMT -5
There are also feminisms responding to concerns of third world women, or women not in white, western countries. Yeah, this is the type of feminism I mentioned identifying most with. Even as a white woman and a citizen of a wealthy country, I've never found feminisms that centered white people or upper middle class constituencies very compelling... Because, as I said, I came to feminism because of my involvement with the economic marginalization (same reason I haven't totally left Christianity--the "Sermon on the Mount" and all that it entails). This has become more personal to me as an adult, coming to terms with not having been born into an upper middle-class family or culture. And even more so as I've begun to identify as a person with physical disabilities. Transnational/postcolonial/"Third World" feminisms speak more directly to my experiences of the world--and observations about it--than other kinds have done.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 25, 2010 17:00:43 GMT -5
Only you can define feminism for you. Okay, in all seriousness: I don't know that much about the different waves, so I am of little help in this discussion. I can recognize mainly third-wave ideas as such, though I admit I thought that 'sex-positive' referred to an aspect of this 'wave' rather than an independent movement within feminism. But I wanted to say that I disagree with just about every feminist writer I've ever read, but never on the same issue. For this reason, I like to claim my own little niche within feminism. This is what I meant by my little joke at the beginning. I consider myself 'sex-positive' but I don't find all expressions of sex positive (I part ways with the third wavers on prostitution and pornography). Separatist feminism makes little sense to me as it seems just another way of promoting sexual apartheid. But I want my citizenship to mean exactly what a man's does. I want the right to walk down my own street unmolested. I want my body to be mine, not the property of every beholder. I want my ideas to travel on their own dime, not to be dismissed because of the time of the month or to be drowned out by the apparent loudness of my cleavage. To me, feminism is about trying to make that world happen. ETA: By the way, I was trying to be cheeky rather than patronizing, just in case that didn't come across well. There are wikipedia articles about the different waves of feminism, but I'm not sure how true to character they are.
|
|
|
Post by RTam on Jun 25, 2010 18:14:25 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to define very, very crudely what constitutes the 3 waves of feminism. However, keep in mind what Sierra said - every feminist defines feminism for themselves, so there is no official party line to tow. A self-identified secondwaver may very well hold opinions I'll ascribe to thirdwavers, and a self-identified thirdwaver may well be sex-negative when it comes to prostitution. The second and third wave are very intertwined, since one pretty much grew out of the other. The first wave were basically the suffragettes at the turn of the century who fought - and won - the vote, as well as several other achievements for women's rights. The second wave were the feminists in the Sixties and Seventies and the stereotypical image embedded in popcultural conscioussness is based on them. The third wave of feminism started somewhen in the late Nineties and extends to the present. Now, as for the differences... The third wave basically arose to deal with what they saw as failures of the second, while keeping the basics. Thirdwave feminism is much more concerned with interesecting areas of discrimination, meaning they not only address sexism, but also study how for example race and class affect gender relations. They are as a result much more closely aligned with civil and gay rights groups. They accuse the secondwavers of being feminism only for white, upper middle class women, marginalizing the experiences of poor women and women of color. Of special mention here is the issue of transsexuality, of which secondwavers were contemptuous, often hostile to transwomen whom they saw as predatory men (and also ignoring FtMs). The thirdwavers, for the most part, distance themselves from such transphobia, and generally ally themselves with GLBT causes. So, in essence, secondwavers fought the patriarchy. Thirdwavers on the other hand fight the kyriarchy (from the word "kyrios", "Master"), which encompasses all the ways in which humans are systematically devalued and dominated - sexism, racism, classim, homophobia, disablism etc. - of which the patriarchy is only a part. Now, among feminists there's also a divide between "sex-positive" feminists (usually thirdwavers), who believe sex, and making money from sex (i.e. porn and prostitution), can be empowering and is not inherently degrading to women and anti-pornography feminists, mostly radical feminists, who think women in the sex industry have internalized and are supporting rape culture. It's a very complicated issue, more here. Feminists also argue about gender differences. Some think gender roles are a mere social construct, a false gender binary that harms us all. Others think the "feminine" and the "masculine" are real, and that the feminine traits have long been derided and marginalized by the patriarchy and need to be reclaimed. Sometimes this goes along with believing that the "masculine" is naturally aggressive and even evil. Some fall somewhere in the middle, arguing there are slight neurological differences that have been amplified and distorted by social conditioning, so it's impossible to tell what exactly these differences are. Again, very complicated. The list goes on. Feminism is no cohesive ideology and, really, I know no feminist that believes the same as another :P
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 25, 2010 18:32:49 GMT -5
RTamThank you.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 19:02:31 GMT -5
RTam: Your synopsis is quite good. Thank you!
I would just like to add that all the mess about the "waves" is largely specific to US debates about feminism (sometimes extending into the UK and Canada).
There are also the "French feminists," who are much more theoretical/philosophical than most US feminists. btw, there are people who engage these thinkers in the US, so it's not necessarily possible to talk about this without the effects of globalization (even though "French feminists" and "US waves" are still used to delineate.). These feminists don't fit anywhere closely within the US "waves." The best-known of these are Simone de Beauvoir, Irigaray, Kristeva, and Cixous. They disagree about a lot of things and are rooted in Contintental philosophy and psychoanalysis (with the exception of de Beauvoir on the latter, who replaced psychoanalysis with existentialism). Sometimes they are closely linked to the poststructuralist school of French thought (meaning, roughly, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze).
I am not an expert on these feminists, but I've read some things here and there. They are generally more academic, more erudite, less straightforward... I don't love them, largely because I don't like psychoanalysis in the way that it's often used in philosophy (often overly simplistic, and painfully dated, going back to Freud and Jung).
Like sierra, I've never found a feminist school of thought in which I agreed with every major point. The closest is a theorist named Wendy Brown who I wouldn't recommend to anyone without an pretty sound background in Continental philosophy because she requires such a background. I don't fit very well into streamlined systems of thought, 's just how I am. I get grouped into the "third wave" by many other people, but meh... Before a US audience, I'd probably just use "third wave" for simplicity's sake, but before an international audience, I'd use something like "postcolonial" or even "post-Marxist." So, yes, the French feminists.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 19:24:42 GMT -5
Also wanted to reply to what sierra said about confusing "third wave" with "sex positive." It's easy to do this because they get conflated a lot. It's also precisely why I'm reluctant to call myself a third wave feminist. If I have to give myself a label regarding my position about sex, it's mostly... Well, more sex positive than not, I guess. I'm not exactly pro-porn as much as I'm against making porn a priority because, well, I see it as far less of a problem than, well, world poverty (and the feminization of poverty worldwide).
ETA: And also, I'd like to deal more with the problems in the porn industry by extending better legal rights and protections to sex workers. I think criminalization is totally ineffective, as there will always be prostitution. But I think true progress could be made if we did more to protect sex workers.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 19:50:13 GMT -5
And, p.s., cherylannhannah, I'm really glad that you asked the question. I think there can be a lot of misunderstanding about what feminism means among a lot of conservative Christians. When I was more entrenched in a conservative Christian community, I certainly had no understanding of the nuances and distinctions that divide various "schools" of feminism either. In the US, in particular, there is this assumption that feminism is all about abortion and sex.
Which I don't really identify with at all, as rallying points for a movement. I am pro-choice, yes, but this is not the most important issue for me personally. Not to mention that, as a person of faith, it's not a completely clear-cut issue to me. I tend to think that the more compassionate option is to extend rights to women, but I have no idea when life starts. I'd have said the same thing as President Obama in that debate with Rick Warren: "That's beyond my job description."
I came to feminism because I was first an anti-war/pacifist Christian (which led me to live and work in other parts of the world, which made me feel more impassioned about fighting for the justice and flourishing of women as women (with all of the difficulties inherent in referring to women as a single category. I wanted to think through race, class, geopolitical context, and differences between women as a feminist. Which is the main thing that situates me in the "third wave."). And as with my relationship to Christianity, I have a complicated and not-altogether-enthusiastic one to feminism. As I've gotten older, I've become more and more comfortable with being less and less certain about much of anything--including Christianity and feminism. And pacifism (I'd be hard-pressed to identify as an uncomplicated Anabaptist pacifist these days.).
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 21:10:29 GMT -5
I have some issues with "defining" feminism as though it is some sort of static state of being. To me, it more or less describes the state of women trying to get a fair deal in a male-centred world. I would consider any of the women on this forum who are struggling with patriarchal systems to be feminists.
I was a young woman in the sixties/seventies and personally found the media circus to be extremely frustrating. One would hear sound bites by women like Betty Freidan apparently saying something outrageous - until the entire context was made clear. At that time though, much of what we now take for granted was outrageous - like a woman being able to get a bank loan without a "responsible" male co-signer, usually a husband or father.
Feminists were caricatured as frustrated bra-burning man-haters who never bathed or shaved their legs and were probably lesbians - too ugly in any case to attract a man!! That is the origin of at least some of the antipathy toward the non-hetero and other non-normative women. Much of the progress made by these women has been forgotten, subsumed into the culture or slowly eroded. The caricature remains and poisons the discussion.
There is a good reason that the so-called "second wave" mostly focused on white middle-class women: they were the ones who would be noticed. When the mothers and wives and daughters of "respectable men" started protesting, the media reported. I have some hazy memories of women garment workers involved as well, but it was the "bra-burners" who got the attention. Equal pay and affordable daycare is as least as important to working-class women of colour as it is to the white middle-class. Unfortunately none of us has that yet. Not as a right anyway.
As for "third wave" feminists, I don't personally see it as something different so much as an evolution in the long process of striving for equality. As with everything else, other attitudes affect the way different people express this striving and go about trying to do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 26, 2010 6:58:22 GMT -5
ETA: And also, I'd like to deal more with the problems in the porn industry by extending better legal rights and protections to sex workers. I think criminalization is totally ineffective, as there will always be prostitution. But I think true progress could be made if we did more to protect sex workers. This is (and I may be explaining myself very poorly here, please bear with me) imho the best solution to anything where people want to legislate against it primarily because they deem it "immoral". Legalize it, and put in safety protections, and perhaps after a while it'll drop off because the mystique is gone.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 26, 2010 7:00:36 GMT -5
In the US, in particular, there is this assumption that feminism is all about abortion and sex. That's funny, wherever I've seen "straw feminists" brought up or people making assumptions about what being a feminist meant, it was the Valerie Solanas type. (Something which, as I understand, Andrea Dworkin was falsely accused of being.) ETA: I am clarifying that I am referring to the Solanas type as a strawman.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 10:01:10 GMT -5
In the US, in particular, there is this assumption that feminism is all about abortion and sex. That's funny, wherever I've seen "straw feminists" brought up or people making assumptions about what being a feminist meant, it was the Valerie Solanas type. (Something which, as I understand, Andrea Dworkin was falsely accused of being.) ETA: I am clarifying that I am referring to the Solanas type as a strawman. Huh. Okay, well, I was just speaking of my observations of discussions about feminism in the mainstream media (usually about groups like NARAL) and elsewhere in mainstream cultural life. My perceptions are also influenced by early exposure to movements like QF, where the "party line" about feminism is often that it's "pro-abortion," and "pro-women leaving their families to work outside the home." As well as reading posts here in which people have talked about what they thought about feminism while they were QFers (most recently, Vyckie's post about "Worldly Parents"). Then, barebones exposure to some of the big names in US feminism (like Dworkin and MacKinnon) can lead one to think it's all about porn. It made me think that when I was an undergraduate student taking a Feminist Philosophy class in which we only addressed porn and abortion for the whole semester. I've never heard Solanas discussed in any mainstream conversation, and I frankly doubt that most of the people I know in so-called Middle America have ever even heard of Solanas. I've only heard her name in discussions of the "Feminist Wars." What she did happened before I was born, and it's not my perception that she's still on the radar of, you know, Everyday Folks. I'm sure this is not 100 % foolproof, though, acecdotal evidence being what it is... Me, I'd never heard of her until I became literate in the various types of feminism as delineated in mostly-US approaches to feminism as an adult. ETA: Other perceptions about what Everyday People think of feminism are based on some totally non-academic surveys I've made of the classes I've taught (along with other friends). I've noticed--and other instructor friends have confirmed--that when you ask a group of college women (usually in a Women's Studies class) to raise their hands if they identify as feminists... Well, most don't. Usually, this has to do with misconceptions about what feminism means because, when you get to know the students, you start to realize that they sort of unequivocally believe in equal rights for women and that women should make as much money as men for identical work and that rape is a serious social problem that must be seriously addressed... Which kind of makes them de facto feminists of a sort, even if they don't call themselves by the name because there are so many misconceptions about what feminism is out in mainstream culture.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 12:26:18 GMT -5
So, now that RTam has done the helpful work of creating a summary, I thought it might be useful to use this as a jumping off point to mention a bit more of the specific literature out there about feminism. I've been thinking about cherylannhannah's question, and it occurs to me that it might make for sort of an interesting "FAQ"--the question, "What is feminism?" I know that, before I pursued an advanced degree (that included dual training in philosophy and women's studies), I didn't know a whole lot about the nuances or distinctions. And I also understood feminism within a worldview that was pretty squarely North America-focused. Having been influenced in my young life by the fundamentalist movement, I also wonder if there are many women leaving movements like QF who have similar questions about feminism. If an FAQ sounds like a good idea, I'd be happy to write something for the FAQ section (based on my comments here) and then solicit feedback in the way that KR does. So, for what it's worth, I just wanted to give some names, in case anyone out there is interested in reading further on this topic (this is a long comment, feel free to skip if not interested :)). So, I already mentioned some names within the French feminism category, but here are some others: Okay, I'm going to define very, very crudely what constitutes the 3 waves of feminism. However, keep in mind what Sierra said - every feminist defines feminism for themselves, so there is no official party line to tow. A self-identified secondwaver may very well hold opinions I'll ascribe to thirdwavers, and a self-identified thirdwaver may well be sex-negative when it comes to prostitution. The second and third wave are very intertwined, since one pretty much grew out of the other. Just highlighting this because it's very, very true. In the name of objectivity, I guess I'd just say that I've never heard any feminist self-identify as "sex-negative," and that this is sometimes head as an overly inflammatory term. The first wave were basically the suffragettes at the turn of the century who fought - and won - the vote, as well as several other achievements for women's rights. Yes, Mary Wollstonecraft, wrote several well-known treatises on this and might be useful to people who are interested in feminists of this period. Other notable names are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone. Some of these early feminists, in addition to promoting suffrage, had an interest in family planning and in making it more accessible to women. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is one of the most notable early advocates of family planning. During the twentieth century, controversy began to arise about the way that some of these early feminists are often remembered in history, notably because some of them were involved in both (1) eugenics advocacy and (2) actual white supremacist agitation. The former is more well-known here because the movers and shakers of the QF movement have made a big deal of it in order to serve as a "straw argument" against feminism in general. This doesn't mean that it's not an important part of history, though, or that it's wrong to remember both the helpful (and oppressive) legacy of people like Sanger. The involvement in direct white supremacy agitation is less well-known, but here are some resources about it: Louise Michelle Newman, White Women's Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States. www.amazon.com/White-Womens-Rights-Origins-Feminism/dp/0195124669/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1Kathleen M. Bee, Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s www.amazon.com/Women-Klan-Racism-Gender-1920s/dp/0520257871/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277569688&sr=1-1Kathleen M. Bee, Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. www.amazon.com/Inside-Organized-Racism-Women-Movement/dp/0520240553/ref=pd_sim_b_1About eugenics (resources other than Gothard!): Angelique Richardson, Love and Eugenics in the Late Nineteenth Century: Rational Reproduction and the New Woman. www.amazon.com/Love-Eugenics-Late-Nineteenth-Century/dp/0198187017/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277569885&sr=1-3Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility. www.amazon.com/Margaret-Sangers-Eugenic-Legacy-Fertility/dp/0786420111/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277569885&sr=1-5Ladelle McWhorter, Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America: A Genealogy. This is a theoretical work by a Foucauldian philosopher whom I happen to love, but I should warn that it does suppose at least a basic knowledge of Foucault, if not outright expertise. www.amazon.com/Racism-Sexual-Oppression-Anglo-America-Genealogy/dp/0253220637/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1277570118&sr=1-2-fkmr0The second wave were the feminists in the Sixties and Seventies and the stereotypical image embedded in popcultural conscioussness is based on them. Right. Also, I want to clarify that this period of time produced a variety of different views, though some dominant beliefs have in time become understood in the public consciousness as unified. But they are not, necessarily. Second wave feminists included both liberal feminists like as Gloria Steinem and radical feminists such as Mary Daly. These are not necessarily in agreement on much of anything, and their styles of discourse/activism/writing were quite different. At any rate, this period produced the writers and activists who are probably most well-known in the cultural consciousness--and most often discussed when one speaks of "feminism." More contemporary writers within the "radical feminist" spectrum include well-known feminists Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (both of whom dramatically tempered some of the early radical feminist literature, which sometimes went as far as calling for female separatism and even male genocide). Another contemporary writer who falls somewhere within this spectrum is the philosopher, Adrienne Rich. The more contemporary US-based radical feminists are often characterized by a focus on (though this is of course an incomplete generalization) the issues of pornography and BDSM. The third wave of feminism started somewhen in the late Nineties and extends to the present. I should say that the third wave, such as it is, was highly influenced by early criticisms of the second wave's tendency to ignore the gender-based struggles of African-American women and to focus primarily on the needs of white upper-middle class women. These criticisms were most famously voiced by bell hooks and Audre Lorde (the latter of whom had a well-known public dispute with Mary Daly). These criticisms began to arise, of course, before the nineties. One of hooks' most well-known writings about these issues is probably Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (http://www.amazon.com/Sister-Outsider-Speeches-Crossing-Feminist/dp/1580911862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277571008&sr=1-1). Also, Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism (http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Woman-Black-Women-Feminism/dp/089608129X/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277571136&sr=1-11). hooks writes in an extremely accessible style, and I recommend her without hesitation to people who are interested in understanding more about US discussions of race and feminism. Lorde has written extensive academic works about many, many topics, and she's also important. If interested in her responses to these particular issues, I would probably recommend her published responses to Mary Daly. The third wave basically arose to deal with what they saw as failures of the second, while keeping the basics. Thirdwave feminism is much more concerned with interesecting areas of discrimination, meaning they not only address sexism, but also study how for example race and class affect gender relations. They are as a result much more closely aligned with civil and gay rights groups. Yes, though of course the second wave has been in dialogue over gay rights groups over issues like "political lesbianism" (a political identity taken up by straight women who are interested in feminist separatism at some level and who partner with other women for political reasons). I think I've been largely objective up to this point, but I'll say here that this tends to make my head spin, as an actual queer person, when my identity is appropriated by people who are not actually interested in sex with other women and who are actually holding on to all that comes with straight privilege./end of soapbox Like I said above, most people who fall into the third wave have been highly influenced by people like Lorde and hooks. One of these is Andrea Smith; I'd recommend her Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide (http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Sexual-Violence-American-Genocide/dp/0896087433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277571608&sr=1-1). They accuse the secondwavers of being feminism only for white, upper middle class women, marginalizing the experiences of poor women and women of color. Right, and this would be why postcolonial feminism often converges with US-based third wave feminism (with the note that "women of color" is a US-based term not generally used in international discussions of feminism). Postcolonial feminism takes up the relationship of traditional US-based forms of feminism to women who are situated in colonial contexts (or are members of marginalized racial minorities in non-postcolonial settings, like African-American women in the US). hook and Lorde are often included in discussions about "Third World feminism" (a complicated term that is often picked up for political reasons in these discussions--and to more or less point out that "our most trenchant oppressions are not the same as yours"). Angela Davis probably makes this connection most directly, in her Women, Race, and Class (http://www.amazon.com/Women-Race-Class-Angela-Davis/dp/0394713516/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277571984&sr=1-3). Some other notable works are: Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. I love this book as well. It includes Mohanty's classic article, "Under Western Eyes," which addresses the way in which a lot of Western feminists have tended to approach non-Western women (that is, as passive, thoroughly victimized, non-subjects). www.amazon.com/Feminism-without-Borders-Decolonizing-Practicing/dp/0822330210/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277572057&sr=1-1Arundati Roy, a literary author of many, many works. See here: www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dus-stripbooks-tree&field-keywords=arundati+roy&x=0&y=0 Gayatri Spivak, Can the Subaltern Speak? (http://www.amazon.com/Subaltern-Speak-Gayatri-Chakravorty-Spivak/dp/3851325060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277572349&sr=1-1) and The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (http://www.amazon.com/Post-Colonial-Critic-Interviews-Strategies-Dialogues/dp/0415901707/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277572325&sr=1-10). I like Spivak, but I'll tell you right now that she's incredibly difficult to read, largely because she's influenced by the poststructuralist thought of Jacques Derrida, who is probably one of the most difficult-to-read writers in the history of Western philosophy. I don't totally understand her most well-known essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak?" and I have an advanced degree in this stuff. :) I'll also note that much of this work is influenced by responses to Marxism in postcolonial countries. That is to say, not Maoism or Leninism or any of the dominant interpretations of Marxism, but of Marxism in the developing world. Their Marxism is more structurally and politically akin to theological (often Christian) interpretations of Marxism, such as liberation theology in Latin America (that is to say, people like Oscar Romero and Leonardo Boff). It's also influenced by early anti-colonial theorists like Frantz Fanon (best-known for his book, The Wretched of the Earth). Much of this work is characterized by (again, a simplification) responses to US political and military hegemony, the history of colonialism, and responses to racism within the feminist movement. There is also a common thread that often questions the way in which US feminism often addresses the third world. It questions the power that Western feminists often have to dictate the terms and priorities of feminist debate (because they often hold the most prestigious positions at universities, etc.). This often centers on a critique of the often overly-simplistic Western feminist approaches to such issues as "female genital mutilation" (an in-apt term because the practice differs so extensively across regions and cultures) and foot-binding. In academic terms, this sometimes means a focus on other feminist issues, like women's oppression in various types of labor, etc. Okay, at this moment, I kinda have to take a break and get back to my day, but Part II is coming shortly. Maybe this should be a series of FAQ posts. :)
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 18:54:19 GMT -5
Just bumping this thread 'cause I think it's been more productive than...Other Stuff. Planning to write Part II tomorrow; I hope the resources I'm listing are helpful to some people.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 26, 2010 19:33:56 GMT -5
At this point I would like to thank everyone who took the time to answer my question. I know I could have googled for it, but I like hearing from real life women who are involved in it in order to get the more personal touch and feel.
I suppose some would consider me a mild sort of feminist since I have abandoned the hierarchichal view of marriage that traditional Christianity portrays as the Biblical ideal. I prefer to think that I am in favor of proper treatment of people regardless of age, gender, race, etc.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 26, 2010 22:00:40 GMT -5
I was a kid during most of the era of "Second wave" feminism and I remember comments my mother made about women being fired from their jobs as soon as pregnancy became obvious, of school teachers going out on maternity leave as soon as they "Showed" as well.
I also remember her speaking resentfully of her own youth and young womanhood. When the only professional options for women were nursing, teaching and librarianship, none of which she wanted to do. In my mind I see second wave feminists as having opened so many doors, doors to careers in fields that had been male dominated, like medicine and law, only two examples. I also know that a lot of work has been done where there are now men who are comfortable being the stay at home parent (though they still feel the need to cover it with "I'm really a---")
The fact that I have a choice whether to work or to stay at home, how many children to have and when, and the choice to return to my career at some point are all because Feminists stood up and demanded equal rights with men.
The idea that poor and minority women were ignored by Second Wave feminists makes me kind of confused, Yes poor and minority women were already working because they had to, but their daughters often got a better education and became professional women because those doors were open by "second wave" feminists. (a robust civil rights movement was part of it too!)
Two things I see that make me NUTS are people who think the work of feminism is done. It won't be until nobody is judged on gender. It should be no surprise to anyone that a man wants to stay home with his kids and nobody should say that he's some how deficient because of that choice. No man should ever feel that a woman owes him sex because he (fill in the blank).
The other thing that makes me nuts is when women across the political spectrum feel the need to distance themselves from feminism. From Sarah Palin who wouldn't have ever been governor of Alaska if it hadn't been for Feminism to Ramona Random who can leave a cruddy marriage because she's going to be able to get a job and support herself. Without Feminism that wouldn't be quite so sure an outcome!
You guys have written so many terrific and informative posts, Thank you very much, and thank you for reading my little rant...
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 27, 2010 10:39:21 GMT -5
Cherylannhannah, thank you so much for asking this all too important question Sierra, I agree that any feminism is as unique as the woman/girl claiming it Autumn, thank you for the reminder that all of us stand on the shoulders of giants
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 13:53:22 GMT -5
Okay, moving on to Part II. By the way, thanks to those of you who've been reading along. I've been encouraged by your feedback and am glad that some have found this helpful. I'm going to begin just where I left off on RTam's post: Of special mention here is the issue of transsexuality, of which secondwavers were contemptuous, often hostile to transwomen whom they saw as predatory men (and also ignoring FtMs). The thirdwavers, for the most part, distance themselves from such transphobia, and generally ally themselves with GLBT causes. The main impetus for the second wave treatment of trans women (mostly among radical feminists, as the issue of transsexuality was generally ignored by liberal feminists like Steinem) was a book that Janice Raymond wrote while a PhD student under the supervision of radical feminist philosopher/theologian Mary Daly called The Transsexual Empire (similar to Germaine Greer's Whole Woman). This book was extremely influential among a subset (though not 100 %) of radical feminists when it was written, and it basically proffered the thesis that trans women were actually tools of the patriarchy who were attempting to "rape women's bodies" by inhabiting them. For some trans responses to this thesis (and its implications), I want to direct you to some blog posts written by some pals of mine: questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/about/questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/the-legacies-of-trans-exclusive-feminism-aka-why-are-you-angry/questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/a-response-to-jane-on-christine-burns-podcast/For a well-regarded book about this subject, see Julia Serrano's Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. www.amazon.com/Whipping-Girl-Transsexual-Scapegoating-Femininity/dp/1580051545/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277660961&sr=1-1And as an aside to this particular post, a trans woman's perspective on the use of the term "MTF": questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/i-hate-mtf-and-ftm/By means of full disclosure, I'll say this: If I have biases against radical feminism in general (as I have been accused), they have most of all to do with the influence of the kind of hate speech pedalled by Raymond more than anything else (yeah, I called it hate speech). That said, it's important to be clear here and say that Raymond et. al. do not speak for all radical feminsts. Though they spoke for a great many of them during the second wave, many contemporary radical feminists have distanced themselves from this perspective. And why do I think it's so important? Beyond, y'know, "I haz trans friends," which I do but which is no answer. Mostly, I have to say, because learning about the extent of suffering that trans people undergo in a society that discriminates against them (mostly from the Questioning Transphobia blog that I linked) has been astounding for me. I mean, just the barebones statistics make your blood run cold: One in eight trans women of color will die of murder. One in eight. So, there's that. But there's also the more personal issue of identity, which is that, as a bisexual woman, I know what it's like to be excluded from some feminist spaces and from some LGBT spaces (not to mention a great many religious spaces) because of my identity. I don't feel like I fit in anywhere, and though I cannot of course understand trans experience, I do feel motivated toward compassion about it in part becuase of my own experiences. /okay, end of editorializing bit. So, in essence, secondwavers fought the patriarchy. Thirdwavers on the other hand fight the kyriarchy (from the word "kyrios", "Master"), which encompasses all the ways in which humans are systematically devalued and dominated - sexism, racism, classim, homophobia, disablism etc. - of which the patriarchy is only a part. Well, yes, this is good enough generalization, though I wouldn't say that "patriarchy" is only a part of these kinds of movements because that makes it sound a bit like an afterthought. I know that "kyriarchy" isn't an every day word, btw, so here's a good blog post about it. This post popularized it around the blogosphere and makes use of a term coined by feminist theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza: myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.htmlNow, among feminists there's also a divide between "sex-positive" feminists (usually thirdwavers), who believe sex, and making money from sex (i.e. porn and prostitution), can be empowering and is not inherently degrading to women and anti-pornography feminists, mostly radical feminists, who think women in the sex industry have internalized and are supporting rape culture. It's a very complicated issue, more here.. *sigh* Yes, and then there are those of us who can't totally place ourselves on either side of the dichotomy. I have to tell you that I'm less well-read on these issues than most others, so there's not much that I can link on the "sex positive side." We've already mentioned the most well-known radical feminists who are against this perspective (Dworkin, MacKinnon, etc.). I've read these (they were the intro literature in my Feminist Philosophy course as an undergraduate, and also what we read in a similar course that I later TAed for). I've mentioned to you all, though, that I'm not particularly invested in this debate, so I'm not even sure I can think of any "sex positive" literature that I've actually read...? So, if anyone else is better-versed in this stuff, I hope you'll speak up and link some things. I know that Renegade Evolution is a well-known sex-positive blogger (and sex worker), but I've not read a single well-known book on the sex-positive movement within feminism. I think Yes Means Yes is usually understood as being on this side, though I (1) have not read it and (2) am not sure that Valenti and friends would unequivocally call themselves sex-positives. I don't know... Movements within pop cultural feminism are probably my weakest area of knowledge here: www.amazon.com/Yes-Means-Visions-Female-Without/dp/1580052576/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277662439&sr=1-1And a former professor of mine contributed to some of the literature on sex workers' rights, but I don't think she ever wrote books about it. If you have access to academic databases, you might find those articles interesting. ETA: I neglected to mention her name, Lucinda Peach. I know I've seen one academic book on the topic, but I'm afraid it's slipped my mind... I'll try to look for it on Amazon, but, well, I'm sure there are others here who can contribute more knowledgably to resources on this debate? One other reason I stay out of debates about porn and the like: Not Well Informed, beyond, well, having read the classic radical feminist stuff. Feminists also argue about gender differences. Some think gender roles are a mere social construct, a false gender binary that harms us all. Others think the "feminine" and the "masculine" are real, and that the feminine traits have long been derided and marginalized by the patriarchy and need to be reclaimed. Sometimes this goes along with believing that the "masculine" is naturally aggressive and even evil. Some fall somewhere in the middle, arguing there are slight neurological differences that have been amplified and distorted by social conditioning, so it's impossible to tell what exactly these differences are. Again, very complicated. This began when the second wave feminists started making a distinction between sex and gender--and questioning whether or not there was anything innate about gender expression, or if it could be explained solely as the result of social conditioning. Some of this comes up today in debates between transsexual individuals and feminists (with feminists sometimes using trans people as examples for theory and trans people going, "No, wait, I'm an actual person, and I do experience my life according to this particular gender binary, and I'm not some theoretical trope/object meant to enhance your academic career."). I don't feel qualified to comment at length about this beyond stating that I think there is some room for biology and some room for conditionig w/r/t gender expression, and (as with the sex debates), I'm not comfortable placing myself solely on either side of the debate. I also think it's likely that there's a lot of divergence in this--and that some of us are influenced more by conditioning and some more by biology. These days, it's often centered around the debates between people who have been influenced by Judith Butler.See her Gender Trouble for more information: www.amazon.com/Gender-Trouble-Feminism-Subversion-Routledge/dp/0415389550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277663179&sr=1-1Particularly in the works of her early career (which have been the most influential), Butler's work is very dense. She's a philosopher/rhetoritician, and it's difficult to understand her work without a baseline knowledge of Foucault (and probably of Lacan as well). Foucault, as I've mentioned, was one of the most important poststructuralist thinkers of the twentieth century. Jacques Lacan, however, is the psychoanalyst who has been most influential with philosophers who incorporate psychoanalysis into their works. Gender Trouble is one of the most-read books in undergraduate women's studies classes nowadays, and, well, most undergraduates don't have this kind of background. In my opinion, this has contributed to a sort of shoddy popular reading of Butler that understands her as claiming the following: "Gender is not real. It's all socially constructed, which means it's only something that we perform. So, it's performative." This is a gross misunderstanding of her work, which is actually much more complex (but which does question the idea that gender is something fixed/static from birth). This can be annoying in some feminist activist spaces, as well as in women's studies departments, where people go around going, "Gender is totally performative, man," and Butler didn't actually mean to create a slogan or catchphrase. (Sorry, that's the annoying philosophy-person/theorist in me, which is all about the close and accurate readings of important works.) One book that talks about this stuff (that I like more than Butler's stuff, and that's also more accessible) is Ladelle McWhorter's Bodies and Pleasures (I know it sounds a little pornographic, but it's really not about sex. It's about the author coming to terms with her lesbianism): www.amazon.com/Bodies-Pleasures-Foucault-Politics-Normalization/dp/0253213258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277663866&sr=1-1I recommend this book because she says a lot of what Butler is saying, and she explains why and how Foucault scholarship is being used in this debate. But she does it in a way that normal everyday people can understand, and I think that goes a long way (and I think it should replace Gender Trouble as the most important philosophical treatment of this subject, but that's unlikely to happen any time soon... So, instead, I recommend it often. :)) The list goes on. Feminism is no cohesive ideology and, really, I know no feminist that believes the same as another :P Don't it, though. :) There are also a lot of feminists who are influential in cultural theory and literary criticism: www.amazon.com/History-Feminist-Literary-Criticism/dp/0521852552/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664061&sr=1-2And Donna Harraway is a third wave feminst sort of in her own category (she writes about science, her friendship with her dog, and video games and feminism, and is highly influential now): www.amazon.com/Companion-Species-Manifesto-Significant-Otherness/dp/0971757585/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664126&sr=1-1(This book on cyborgs is her most famous.) www.amazon.com/Simians-Cyborgs-Women-Reinvention-Nature/dp/0415903874/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664126&sr=1-3There are a lot of feminists who write to question evolutionary psychology (another topic on which I'm not well-versed, so if anyone else knows about works, please list them.) There are feminist environmentalists (some of this stems directly from a second wave strand of feminism called eco-feminism): www.amazon.com/Feminist-Political-Ecology-Experience-International/dp/0415120268/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664271&sr=1-3www.amazon.com/Ecofeminist-Natures-Gender-Feminist-Political/dp/0415912504/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664271&sr=1-4There's feminst standpoint epistemology (stems from questions about the second wave and attempts to recognize the concerns of people of color and people in developing countries). It attempts to do research in which one puts oneself in the shoes of the research subject, and is semi-influenced by post-Marxist attempts to do this (particularly those of the Frankfurt school theorists): www.amazon.com/Feminist-Epistemologies-Thinking-Gender-Alcoff/dp/041590451X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664482&sr=1-1www.amazon.com/Science-Multicultural-Postcolonialisms-Feminisms-Epistemologies/dp/0253211565/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664482&sr=1-4www.amazon.com/Feminist-Perspectives-Research-Sharlene-Hesse-Biber/dp/0195158113/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277664482&sr=1-12And then there's feminist theology and feminist liberation theology and feminist Latina theology... I have an interest in this stuff but am just starting to read about it, so I'm not totally qualified to make recommendations at this point. There are a lot of people whose names I haven't mentioned, and of course I invite everyone to add to these litsts I've made. I may think of things at a later time myself. Hope this is helpful. ETA: I wrote more about the issues that I know more about, which may in some cases be indicitive of personal biases that I have. To that end, I don't think NLQ is necessarily the place where I'm going to be willing to get involved in long drawn out debates about different kinds of feminism; I don't think this is the place for that (my opinion, and one more reason I avoid such debates here and sometimes merely wish to voice my disagreement/opinion and leave it at that). That said, I wrote most extensively on those areas in which I have the most expertise, background, and/or personal stake, but I by no means know the in's and out's of every aspect of feminism. So, like I said, I hope that others will name resources that I've overlooked, as I know there are many.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 15:06:21 GMT -5
Oh, I also neglected to mention:
There are a lot of well-known feminst blogs out there; many of the big ones are connected to the third wave in some way. They can provide a good non-academic introduction to some of these feminist issues. In general (as with probably most big blogs, including this one), many of us (including me) probably find many things to both disagree and agree about on them. By the way, I'm not using my computer (with my bookmarks) right now, so I'll try to come by and add links later (but they are also easily googled as well). The big name blogs that I know of are feministe and feministing. Which is not, of course, to imply that other forms of feminism cannot also be anti-racist. Certainly, they can, but this is a priority within this time of feminism/womanism, and it's also something that's often called out in some types of North America-centered feminism.
Then there are a lot of radical women of color blogs out there. My favorite is probably Lisa (whose explanation of kyriarchy I linked above). I also like the bloggings of little light, brownfemipower, problemchylde, and crip chick (whose disability blog I truly love). A guy called Nezua is often in conversation with these people, and I like his writing quite a lot. He writes about Latin@ issues specific to the US.
ETA: Of course, terminology is complicated, innit? I should add here, that "radical woman of color" as adopted as an identity by the women I listed above is not linked to early radical feminism. Its intellectual roots are more with people like bell hooks and Audre Lorde, as well as a sort of post-colonial/anti-racist approach to feminism and politics. Which is not to say, of course, that other forms of feminism/womanism cannot also be anti-racist, only that this is a central facet of these writers.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 15:39:51 GMT -5
Okay, I'm sorry for the serial posting. It's just... When I actually have something to say, it tends to come out quickly, so... This is the last, I think, for now. I think there have been a couple of people here and there who have found me too critical of feminism and/or too critical of Christianity for their liking. That's fine, and those are fair critiques. I just wanted to say that this probably has more to do with my personal wiring than anything else--and the fact that I personally feel more motivated to call for justice and liberation (I know, a cliche, and I groaned when I wrote it) within communities that I belong to (feminist, Christian, etc.).
This has to do with my own personal investment in these communities (and strong feelings about some things that happen in them). For the record, this is not because of any sense of anti-feminism or anti-Christian-ism on my part. The point is... This is not because of some shady political agenda on my part (as has also been alluded); it's because of me and who I am as an individual and where I have often felt that I can make the most trenchant difference in the world. Hope that's clear.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 27, 2010 15:51:20 GMT -5
Sorry if I come across longwinded or rambling here, it's just how I write. The fact that I have always more identified with women than men (and am transgender), some women think I'm worse than a regular old male-chauvinist pig (a phrase I throw around myself because of my own hatred for machismo, being that male chauvinism seems to invariably, from my perspective, lead to men becoming abusive boyfriends/husbands and parents), because apparently I'm just trying to invade your space. I'm not trying to invade anything. I don't fit in as a man, and obviously I'm not able to fit in as a woman, so I just try to be *me*. Having been abused by the system in some of the same ways as you people I can identify with the feminist movements, the anti-QF/patriarchal stuff etc., because even without being one of you, I've been through some of that myself. The nail that sticks up... can't say I like being different but that's just me. I guess I'm too much of an idealist in that I hope one day gender just WON'T MATTER AT ALL, that one can be free to be whatever mix of so-called male or female personality traits, and no one will think anything of it. Obviously that requires women to be fully equal in all respects to men and in my opinion they are and should of course be considered as such!
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 17:15:49 GMT -5
So, I know I said I was going away, but then I just took a 30 minute car drive by myself, which made me realize that there was something else that I needed to say about the disclaimer in my last comment. It's more defiant--but just as important, I think--as the bit above:
I have always been wary of boundary-drawing efforts, as I've been an outsider in pretty much every "group" I've co-existed in in my life. It started with Christianity and went on to include, among other things: the queer, feminist, and disability communities (and more). I have met more than a few Christians who would like to take away my membership in the club because of my sexuality or because I admit to being an agnostic (who isn't really convinced that Jesus is the only way even though Christianity is what I relate to and practice in my spiritual life). Likewise, I've met more than a few feminists who wanted to revoke my feminist card because I wasn't really convinced that porn was, like, The Greatest Evil of Our Day. I mean, it probably wouldn't even make my top ten list (And if I sat down to write a top 100 list, it wouldn't likely make an appearance there either.).
A lot of this has been coming up for me in recent days, largely because of the thread you started, SargassoSea. I don't know if this was your aim, but... Well, some of you may've noticed that I can be a little wishy-washy in referring to myself as a Christian? And have been over time? Well, I've been that way about feminism too. And you (not SargassoSea, but indeterminate you who wants to take away any one of my identity cards) don't own feminism anymore than the most ardent Quiverfull believer owns God. I am here. I reject attempts at boundary-drawing. I think there are as many different types of feminists as there are different types of Christians, and I would be bored in a world of ideological purity. You can call me "porn-sick" or "hell-bound" all you like, but the whole thing just makes me want to dig in my heels even harder and refuse to go away. And in spaces that are just as much mine as they are yours, I won't be putting my head down or looking away in shame. To reiterate: I have a working class background, and I grew up in the South. I have a Southern accent of a kind. I have multiple graduate degrees that I paid for with too much debt. I have physical disabilities. I curse like a sailor and sometimes I even use curse words unbecoming of either a feminist or a Christian (I hold back a lot on NLQ). I am bisexual, but have only ever partnered with women. I am loud, and when I have something to say, I believe in its importance. And I'm a Christian and a feminist who ain't going away.
Now, specifically to you, SargassoSea: Ever since I got into a debate with one of Vyckie's male friends (and other commenters) about one of his posts (because of a personal trigger I had), I've been trying to follow Vyckie's directive w/r/t "the presumption of goodwill." I did that with you through Day 1, but I have had it, and I must tell you that it's over between you and me. You threw a manipulative and emotionally abusive tantrum in an effort to draw me into a debate on terms set by you (which I refuse to engage in this space). You created a painful conflict out of one that didn't exist. I no longer presume your goodwill toward myself (or even toward this community). As you don't appear to have any plan of leaving, I'm telling you this now: I'm not arguing with you. I'm not interested. I'll ignore you from now on when you say things that rub me the wrong way unless they happen to be personal insults (And I don't take abuse from anyone.). I'll pursue a cease-and-desist policy of non-engagement. Unless you say something abusive to someone else here, in which case I'll probably speak up (as I have a tendency to do), I won't address you. And for the record, speaking of any woman here as being "pimped out" qualifies as abuse in my book (I didn't say anything at the time because it seemed like a lot of others had already spoken up by the time I read the discussion.). While I understand there's quite a lot of ideological difference between a lot of feminists, I tend to take it at face value that they don't hate other women. When I see abusive treatment indicating otherwise, I won't keep my mouth shut.
But your desire/will to co-exist here is between you and everyone else. I want no part of your abuse anymore. And also? I want you to know that everything you've done here--while making me feel strong--has probably dinminished your own politics from where I stand. Up until the end of Day 1, I'd been thinking, "Wow, I really need to revisit radical feminism to see if I have any unfair biases against it. This SargassoSea is so different from most radical feminists I've met in the online world. She's really cool. She'll engage respectfully and agree to disagree." Pfffttt... That's not at the top of my personal reexamination list anymore, just saying. I said the other day that I didn't want you to leave. I was being honest at the time. Today, I officially change my position to: I no longer care. I know I bear no responsibility for this, so... Meh.
I am also going to post this (as the last thing I have to say on the matter, barring more abuse) in That Other Thread.
And to usotoki: I hope I didn't mar my synopsis of the relationship between feminism and trans activism too badly. I hope you'll correct me if I've said anything off-base.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 27, 2010 19:45:35 GMT -5
I really wouldn't know, km... I don't get much into activism (though I enjoy cultbusting, I was at several of the anti-Scientology rallies over in Buffalo back in 2008ish).
|
|