Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

These are my own crude approximations. Some feminists overlap, other perspectives and nuances exist. In any case, for purposes of this discussion and in the spirit of keeping it succinct, definitions follow:

(1) Classic Feminist -- you aim for equality between men and women, in the workplace and in marriage, for example.

Some of these women still exist today, essentially as "defectors," for lack of a better term, from the feminist movement, which has gone in the directions indicated below.

See, for example, Daphne Patai's Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Patai seems to have renamed it Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Politics of Purity. In any case, this refers to the same text.

(2) Radical Feminist/Ecofeminist -- you blame men for and the institutions they have created for everything from war to rapacious, environmental destruction. You aim to rewire human thinking all around, from the birth of Christianity or the Scientific Revolution to the present to reshape human affairs entirely. Men must be tamed. Sex is rape. As Andrea Dworkin tells us: "Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine."

This perspective relies heavily on the Marxian worldview.

See, for example, Carolyn Merchant's Death of Nature. Also see Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon.

(3) Postmodernist/Postcolonialist Feminist -- you blame "power" and "the objectification of women" for the things the Radical and Ecofeminists blame men for. But you emphasize concepts like colonialism and imperialism more than anything else. This perspective relies heavily on Foucalt and Derrida. As MacKinnon has bitterly stated: "Man fucks woman. Subject, verb, object."

Also, concepts like "man" and "woman" are mere social constructions and not necessarily reality. Neither is heterosexual sex necessarily the right way for us to have sex. Through self-conscious use of language and "deconstruction," we ought to reprogram the entire thing (constantly).

See, for example, Joan Wallach Scott's Gender and the Politics of History.

[Edited for minor spelling errors -- g.]

[peppermint]

[Gopher]

[grainger]

[oneofthesarahs]

I consider myself to be a classic feminist.

But does it REALLY surprise you that the more radical types of feminists exist? In the general forum, there's a whole thread dedicated to why white girls in Korea are "busted" looking. I'm not saying that it's right to hate on men, but you have to admit it, a lot of guys aren't really helping things any.

[giovanni]

won't somebody PLEASE remember the plight of the white heterosexual male?

[Bramble]

I seriously question your classifications, Gopher. �Radical feminism,� �ecofeminism� and �Marxist feminism� are all the same thing? Excuse me? What about socialist feminism and liberal feminism? You seem to be deliberately misleading people by lumping too many different ideologies together, fabricating one, and leaving out a couple of fairly important ones.

Radical feminists believe women are oppressed mainly through their sexuality�far from being the most common form of feminism in universities, it fell out of favour many years ago because it didn�t address other important issues such as racism and poverty, which also keep huge numbers of women down. Ecofeminists may or may not also be radical feminists � many of them have been influenced by socialist and/or postmodern feminism (possibly in addition to radical feminism).

Although I�m not familiar with Daphne Patai, the title of her book raised an eyebrow so I looked it up. Here�s a review that explains what it�s about:

http://dartreview.com/issues/7.8.99/heterophobia.html

Does anyone here really think this author�s ideology is pro-woman by any stretch? Gopher�s definition of a �classic feminist� sounded a lot like a liberal feminist at first � but Patai sounds more like an antifeminist than anything else.

Gopher, I didn�t vote in your poll, but if I had I would have picked number 3. I haven�t studied the philosophy in as much depth as you apparently have, but this seems pretty noncontroversial to me:

[Satori]

Im not a feminist, at all, far from it. But I like this writer a lot ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

[crusher_of_heads]

kiwiboy, if not being a feminist and yet liking women is wrong, I donut want to be right....

[Gopher]

[Qinella]

I studied feminism a bit in college, though I`ve forgotten most of the technical terms, including classifications, by now.

Honestly, the whole idea of classifications really put me off. Any sort of movement sprung from the throes of oppression is going to have a hard time going as it is. Unification would make more sense, and would lend more credence to what they have to say. This thought leads to broader criticisms from within feminism:

- Fragmenting feminism and using technical/advanced language to discuss the issue alienates women (and men) who have not been educated. This is mostly a class issue.

- Women do not have the same experiences. As we all know, a person living in the US will have much different obstacles than if they move to Korea.

In the current state of things, it`s easy for a skeptic or outsider to look at the so-called movement and point out that no one can agree upon anything. Why favor something a classical feminist proposes when an ecofeminist will disagree? What is their goal? What is their purpose?

The only feminist writing I`ve enjoyed is the kind that takes an objective approach to historical injustice. Men have wronged women, sure, but at the time they felt their actions were sensibile and fair. I also enjoy feminist writers who use plain speech and provide practical ideas for change.

[Gopher]

[Bramble]

OK, I see where you've acknowledged that the classifications were "crude," but I think the following would have been a bit more accurate: 1) liberal 2) radical 3) socialist 4) Marxist 5) postmodern. Those wouldn't have required a 10,000-word explanation.

What you call "classic" feminism doesn't sound much like feminism to me ... Does Patai actually call herself a feminist?

[Gopher]