|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Emma Goldman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: state of anarchy
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I use the term "hardcore feminist" to mean those feminists who propose to rewrite history so that women are seen as the true shapers of all historical events. In my mind, a hardcore feminist sees everything through this lense: well, she asks, where are the women who are the agency behind these events?
First they complain that women are "invisible" in history (and I'm with them here; Marx did this with respect to labor and the working classes, by the way).
But then, as they rewrite history, they start to write men out of the story. This is wrong because when the older histories fail to account for women, it's oversight, it's a lack of awareness. When the hardcore feminists do it today, they're intentionally furthering an ideology. See Silverblatt's Moon, Sun, and Witches, and you'll wonder whether there were any men in early colonial Peru at all. Also see Scott's Gender and the Politics of History for the theoretical underpinnings.
Anyway, it's people, man, people who make history: not men, not women, (what about children!!!), not blacks, not whites, not the colonizers, not the colonized, not kings, not workers, not generals, not foot soldiers, just people. People make history. Glorifying one group over any other leads to distortions. |
It sounds like you know your social theory. Marx was right about so much.
I think many feminists would recognize that history is made by all people, but generally written by the educated elites. History is usually the story of wars and governments and empires. Howard Zinn wrote "A People's History of The United States" as a corrective to the slanted history most books provide. I suspect that in the process of trying to rectify the elite bias in history some groups might become too particularistic.
I think the concept you are looking for when you say "hardcore feminist" is "radical feminist". There are many schools of thought about feminism.
Here is a good list of distinctions between types of feminism. Sorry it is long, but it is an easy primer:
| Quote: |
Afro-American feminists: Reject the Eurocentric approach to knowledge embodied in individualism and positivism. They maintain that race is the primary oppression and that gender is secondary to this. They are particularly critical of scientific work that under-emphasizes the impact of social and economic inequalities between the races. They deplore the failure of mainstream feminism to address the problems of women of color.
Essentialist feminists: argue that women by virtue of their biological and psychological qualities are equal to or superior to men. Although originally rejecting any implication of biological differences as 'a tool for conservatives who wished to keep women in the home,' they have now rethought their position 'with a recognition that biologically based differences between the sexes might imply superiority and power for women in some areas'[Rosser, S.V. (1997) Possible implications of feminist theories for the study of evolution. In P.A. Gowarty (ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections and frontiers. New York: Chapman & Hall].
Evolutionary feminists: based on the evolutionary selection pressure responsiblity of passing genes through birth and nurturing, females do not wage war. Of the 4,000 or so mammal species on the planet, only two form alliances to attack their own species: chimpanzees and humans. The importance of this fact is given even greater strength when we acknowledge the emperical fact that only the males of both species are involved in this social behavior (if you want to call war a "social behavior.") This link to the primates gives rise to this unique view of the evolutionary perspective to feminism. Much of the new overview is based within the emerging science of evolutionary psychology.
Existential feminists: emphasize the ways in which women are raised to see maleness as the natural human state in which women form the objectified 'other.' It is the importance that society accords to biological sex, rather than sex itself, that forces women into playing the role of the Other.
Liberal feminists: argue for the advantages of psychological androgyny, the establishment of a gender-blind society with equal opportunities for men and women, and are unique among other feminists in continuing to accept traditional scientific method.
Marxist feminist: argue that gender oppression can be traced to capitalism as a means of production and to the power structures reproduced by class in capitalist societies. Freedom from gender role constraints can best be sought in a Marxist economy.
Psychoanalytic feminists: Use neo-Freudian theory to argue for the unconscious internalization of female powerlessness. Psychoanalytic feminists trace gender differences to the distinct ways of dealing with psychosexual development. Although they reject the 'biological determinism' of Freud, they trace male dominance to the fact that women are the chief care-takers of infants and children, resulting in boys distancing themselves from their mother and adopting independent and autonomous styles while girls become enmeshed in over-dependent relationships with their mothers.
Post-modern feminists: reject the notion of a stable and unified self but rather see the self as a product of ideology, discourse and language. Equally, they reject the idea that women can speak with a unified voice. They argue against grand theoretical narratives and contend that gender, like the self, is neither real nor fixed but variously socially constructed in different contexts.
Radical feminists: believe that men's oppression of women is the most fundamental and widespread oppression in society. They urge women to reject all theories developed by men including Marxism, psychoanalysis, positivism and existentialism. Women can gain true knowledge only by using and reflecting on their own personal experiences and those of other women. Lesbian separatists allege that compulsory heterosexuality and engagement in patriarchal society makes it impossible for women to understand their own oppression. Women must refuse to collaborate with men in any way that oppresses women, lesbianism is the preferred sexuality and artificial insemination the preferred means of reproduction.
Socialist feminists: seek to give a more equal weighting to class and gender. Socialist feminists integrate material, social and unconscious processes in explaining how race, gender, class and sexuality produce power relations that disadvantage women. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sheba
Joined: 16 May 2005
Location: Here there and everywhere!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most people are subject to judge feminists by STEREOTYPE.
The term feminism refers to the persuit of equal rights between men and women. Thats it. It has nothing to do with lesbians and male haters. Nothing to do with bra burning, and a conspiracy to bring men down and take over the world... contrary to popular belief.
Yes there are women who fit the stereotype, but this is by no means essence of feminism.
(I took gender studies at uni).
I agree with Emma about the article. I see your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emma Goldman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: state of anarchy
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ya-ta Boy"]I'll try to be clearer.
| Quote: |
| It could be these Marines don't mind the attention insofar as they are breaking ground and can demonstrate their competence. |
You could well be right there. I don't see this press coverage as coming from that perspective, though.
| Quote: |
| Here I was speaking about asking a forum that is probably 90% male to express how we think a group of women are thinking. |
Sorry, I am fairly new here and not aware of the demographics of the board. Now I understand your point. But the male (I assume) responses so far are pretty thoughtful.
| Quote: |
| The women may or may not have been targeted. My suspicion (and it is only that) is that it was deliberate. My cell phone is down for the weekend so I'm out of contact with my friends in the insurgency. But back to my suspicions. |
I haven't seen anything in the news (only source, for better or worse, that most of us have) that has specified "targeting", just the veiled reference to "attacking women". If it were the case that they were targeted, or even if the possibility strongly existed, then I suspect that would be headlines. What is being said in the news is all veiled inference.
Thanks for the well thought out reply. I'll try to be equally thoughtful in my posts from now on. I clearly was not precise enough in my o.p. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or maybe it was written that way because it's unusual for women military personel to be killed in Iraq. Around 2%.
Especially when you consider that women are not supposed to be in combat situations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They lose me, however, I guess at the same radical and dysfunctional point where they lost Patai... |
Fortunately, they lose a lot of people that way.
Hatred, bigotry, discrimination are all par for the course in life. Thankfully, thoughtfulness always has a place . . . somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it hard to respect the intellectual capacity of anyone who says the cure for repression is to invert the system and repress the repressors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
