That's fine. I've been an advocate of women's liberation through socialist revolution since I was 16 and I still won't call myself a feminist.
I'm sure I'll have hours of fun looking all these people up:
So, we've already done Wolf and McElroy. I'm not much interersted in Shalit, and I've spent plenty of time talking about Paglia, so I guess that leaves us with one John Stoltenberg...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, he was Dworkin's husband? Nevermind.
Whether that's extreme feminism or basic feminism I'll let the people who've already admitted they've never read a feminist book but know all about it decide.The problem is that people latch onto stuff like this and use that as argument to dismiss all feminism as just crazy man-hating.
I freely admit I don't know all about it and I don't really care much about the theory. I'll still call myself a feminist.
feminism = the radical idea that women are people.
So, I'm trying to figure out who first came up with the idea of sexual objectification. I'm still not sure--none of the articles I'm looking will straight up say "Objectification theory was first brought up by blah blah blah in 19blah blah blah" but they all seem to start with Dworkin and MacKinnon on Kant and pornography.
Dworkin and MacKinnon, of course, are probably the two best examples of extreme feminists who people use to dismiss feminism as crazy man-hating.
So, if it is in fact true--which I'm not saying it is because I don't know--that crazy man-haters Dworkin and MacKinnon came up with this wonderful body of thought, that was later added to by Wolf, then what does that say about objectification theory on the scale of basic feminism ---} extreme man-hating feminism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd check on when The Story of O got popular with the intellectual set, Doodles. (So, like a week after publication in 1954? /Rimshot)
On the one hand, any sort of critical theory is nonsense if you go too far down the rabbit hole. On the other hand, when Wolf says that physical attractiveness in and of itself is a problem, it does strike my as ludicrous, but I do have this sneaking suspicion that our enlightened descendants are going to look at surgical breast enhancement with the sort of disgust we have for foot-binding.
Basically, culture is learned -- and there's no reason, in theory, that any particular sphere or type of learning should be restricted to men, or to women. No physical barrier or obstruction keeps women from learning how to fly helicopters or men from learning how to bake wedding cakes.
What about tendencies though, ie, men (as a group) have more desire to blow stuff up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but I do have this sneaking suspicion that our enlightened descendants are going to look at surgical breast enhancement with the sort of disgust we have for foot-binding.
Probably while splicing their genes for eye color.
|
What about tendencies though, ie, men (as a group) have more desire to blow stuff up?
Basically, culture is learned -- and there's no reason, in theory, that any particular sphere or type of learning should be restricted to men, or to women. No physical barrier or obstruction keeps women from learning how to fly helicopters or men from learning how to bake wedding cakes.
Do they?
Another example of a biological tendency being reinforced and mandated through culture would be sports.
Since Title IX we've seen a massive increase in female participation and interest in sports. Female viewership of sports has increased greatly as a percentage of viewers since it was implemented.
Think of it like a screening process, should gender be on the list of whether someone is allowed to do something or not? If cultural dimorphism is the norm, the screening process looks like:
1. Are they the correct gender?
2. Are they capable of performing the task?
3. Do they want to perform the task?
I'm pretty sure if we just skip step 1 and focus more on 2 and 3 society will be better able to match people up to the jobs/roles that they are best suited for.
The Night WitchesThe barrier that keeps women from flying helicopters (90% of Army helicopter pilots are men) is therefore cultural.
The singular of data is not "anecdote."
Basically, culture is learned -- and there's no reason, in theory, that any particular sphere or type of learning should be restricted to men, or to women. No physical barrier or obstruction keeps women from learning how to fly helicopters or men from learning how to bake wedding cakes.
What about tendencies though, ie, men (as a group) have more desire to blow stuff up?
Sounds cultural and therefore learned to me. I could be wrong, but I'd want to see data.
I'd also want to know what the connection is between medevac flights and blowing stuff up.
The singular of data is not "anecdote."The Night WitchesThe barrier that keeps women from flying helicopters (90% of Army helicopter pilots are men) is therefore cultural.
Yeah, I don't what that means. I just like posting links about Nadezhda Popova.
I'd check on when The Story of O got popular with the intellectual set, Doodles. (So, like a week after publication in 1954? /Rimshot)
On the one hand, any sort of critical theory is nonsense if you go too far down the rabbit hole. On the other hand, when Wolf says that physical attractiveness in and of itself is a problem, it does strike my as ludicrous,
Only problem I have with this is that, so far (and I just got back from work so I haven't looked any further), it appears that sexual objectification theory STARTED with the tag-team ludicrousness of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.
But I guess we can ignore all that and just rely on slogans from bumper stickers.
feminism = the radical idea that women are people.
If anyone can find anything better, I'd love to see it:
You find me one contemporary of Rebecca West's who thought women weren't people and I'll concede it's a radical idea.
No, we're not. People treat people inhumanely all the time regardless of sex.
Who didn't think women were people?
Is it just me or are you dodging the question?
What contemporaries of Rebecca West's thought women weren't people?
Is it just me or are you dodging the question?
What contemporaries of Rebecca West's thought women weren't people?
Lots of contemporaries thought that women didn't need to be treated as people.
Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?
Who thought women weren't people?
Btw, I've remembered one. There was a list of anti-woman "jokes" that I saw once in article about women in the countryside in Tsarist Russia:
"I thought I saw two people coming down the road but it turned out to be a man and his wife."
So there, during Rebecca West's lifetime, Russian peasants would've thought women were people was a radical idea.
I mean, it's catchy and all and looks good on a bumper sticker, but it's a pretty stupid slogan.
As for the state of the "movement," here: International Women's Day in Boston
(Edited)
Apparently, it was cooler in Pakistan.
Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?
In practical terms, yes. If you actually think that someone is a person, you will treat him/her as such.
That's the best you've got?
You find me one contemporary of Rebecca West's who thought women weren't people and I'll concede it's a radical idea.
She was born (and grew to adulthood, I think, but don't quote me on UK history) before women had the the vote, so yeah, at that point the idea that women were people was politically radical.
Young people between the ages of 18 and 21, regardless of gender, didn't have the vote in the United States until when, 1969 or something? (1971, it turns out.) So, before then, the idea that they were people was radical?
Whatever. Here's my point: people on these boards always take pains to distance themselves from the "radical" feminists and insist that "basic" feminism just means a belief in the political, economic and social equality of men and women. And then they turn around and use ideas--sexual objectification, rape culture--derived from the "radical" feminists thereby illustrating that they have no idea what they're talking about when they talk about "radical feminism."
(Edited)
I'd even go so far as to say I wish there were more radical feminists on these boards. At least their ideas are interesting.
Yeah I think it's a dumb slogan as well.
It only holds any water if you think people ought to be treated with dignity or respect. One must concede it is perfectly conceivable to consider someone a person and also not care one whit about their well being.
And on that note, I'll pass the baton to Comrade Meatrace and go to bed.
Nuts to that, I have econ to study and Japanese things to read.
*storms off, dropping the baton in the gutter*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd even go so far as to say I wish there were more radical feminists on these boards. At least their ideas are interesting.
I don't disagree, but then, I take my cue from Samuel R. Delany:
"Man, he can't say that to you!"
"He can say whatever he wants, he's just gotta be ready to listen afterward."
I haven't been fallowing this thread at all closely; has the been some unspoken decision that radical feminists are the mean ones who yell? I like the sort of feminists who hold my hand and tell me how nice I am. No wait, handsome. No, take that back manly; I like the sort of feminists who hold my hand (or more, no need to be shy, ladies) and tell me how manly I am.
Mine!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?
Who thought women weren't people?
This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally. No one's claiming that someone thought women were a different species of animal, or that they weren't human beings. To reduce the phrase to such parsing is to be needlessly semantic. It makes you sound like a lawyer trying to deny a worker his rights due to a technicality :P
[Picks baton up out of the gutter]
I'd even go so far as to say I wish there were more radical feminists on these boards. At least their ideas are interesting.I don't disagree, but then, I take my cue from Samuel R. Delany:
"Man, he can't say that to you!"
"He can say whatever he wants, he's just gotta be ready to listen afterward."
Yeah, well, Delany appears to have spent most of his life in porn theaters, so...
(Link for people who aren't Dicey)
I haven't been fallowing this thread at all closely; has the been some unspoken decision that radical feminists are the mean ones who yell?
I get the idea that "radical feminists" are the ones who say anything that the individual poster disagrees with; "basic" feminists are the ones who say things the individual poster agrees with.
Nuts to that, I have econ to study and Japanese things to read.
*storms off, dropping the baton in the gutter*
STICK!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally.Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?
Who thought women weren't people?
I think it comes down to the imperfections of trying to reduce a variegated body of thought to a flippant line from an old suffragette that has become immortalized on bumper stickers.
You find me one contemporary of Rebecca West's who thought women weren't people and I'll concede it's a radical idea.How about one that didn't treat them as people?
And now we're back to objectification.
Well, do men treat other men as people?
I kinda think the line didn't become flippant until women had the right to vote. (Yes, Doodles, I'm one of those annoying people who thinks that children aren't people, because they don't have their full legal rights.)
I'm loving the slut-walk movement though. Any feminist who wants to prove her emancipation by acting as slutty as humanly possible has my support and (I really can't stress this next part enough) full co-operation. Any means necessary.
You know what? I thought Rebecca West said that, now I'm not sure.
But here's another good one from her: "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."
Classist biznitch.
Do they?What about tendencies though, ie, men (as a group) have more desire to blow stuff up?
Basically, culture is learned -- and there's no reason, in theory, that any particular sphere or type of learning should be restricted to men, or to women. No physical barrier or obstruction keeps women from learning how to fly helicopters or men from learning how to bake wedding cakes.
Yes.
I think we have more than enough evidence to conclude (and Short of raising 50 children of either gender with robots, as much evidence as we're ever going to get) a very strong biological influence on behavior and aggression.
1) we know a mechanism: testosterone. Men have more of it and more receptors for it.
2) Its seen across every culture.
3) It appears to show up very early in childhood before culture has a lot of influence.
Strike old suffragette, keep flippant.
I thought it was west too, but now I'm seeing it attributed to various others; Maybe no one ever actually said it in the first place.
Edit: Ninja'd by a goblin? I can't even look good when I'm admitting I've got it wrong . . .
This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally. No one's claiming that someone thought women were a different species of animal, or that they weren't human beings. To reduce the phrase to such parsing is to be needlessly semantic. It makes you sound like a lawyer trying to deny a worker his rights due to a technicality :P
So...who in 1986 thought women weren't people?
Edit: Ninja'd by a goblin? I can't even look good when I'm admitting I've got it wrong . . .
+4 to Dex, baby, +4 to Dex.
This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally. No one's claiming that someone thought women were a different species of animal, or that they weren't human beings. To reduce the phrase to such parsing is to be needlessly semantic. It makes you sound like a lawyer trying to deny a worker his rights due to a technicality :PSo...who in 1986 thought women weren't people?
In 1993. Rush Limbaugh claims Chelsea Clinton is a dog.
If you can't find it, just do a word search for dog.
So, there we go. Russian peasants and Rush Limbaugh think women aren't people. Everybody else, according to Marie Shear, are feminists.
Glad we got that settled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW I dont consider Rush Limbaugh to be a person.