--0-967274517-1131326410=:85565
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
This response helps me understand exactly why I agree with the ideas of equal
opportunities for women, yet have no desire, in fact negative desire, to call
myself a feminist. It's the same reason I don't call myself anything really; a
republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic. I don't like labels. I
like to simply decide how I feel per issue. The only label I'll take is
"reasonablist", I like that.
I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making disclaimers about her response is
clearly a way of 1) showing humbleness and plurality of opinion, as James
mentions as a possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a discussion
about a subject she's not well read on. It's very possible that someone's
response could change her opinion, so she's showing up front that's she's not
100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be in general - humble and
open-minded.
Melanie
James Mickens wrote:
What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it
trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can do
and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a somewhat
different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that should be
cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist goal
some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists trying
to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly
gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that
the "better" way to make a point is to use the stereotypically male
voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However, one
could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates humbleness and an
openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of feminism to get
women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the
inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me.
In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the extent to which
"feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability of
human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which gendered
differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of professionalism
in society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive
consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of
intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women must fit
into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize."
Presumably, the word "consumption" was modified with "excessive" in a
pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly male
trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait? In positing the
existence of one form of intelligence that is overvalued, we
implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female" intelligence
that is undervalued. But is this female intelligence *intrinsically*
linked with the biological condition of being female, or is an
artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this time? By
saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female
characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable
male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men and women are in
fact essentially different at their cores. If this is true, then
should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate but
equivalent?
Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she
directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man can." I
agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people comfortable with
themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective, it's
unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever completely go
away. It's true that notions of beauty are socially constructed, but
just because they're imaginary doesn't mean that people will stop
daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness---this is
just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy ideals of
attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and less
self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
"radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering
goal which is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered
aesthetics. Once again, I think that the feminism should be
formulated in terms of making people comfortable with themselves, not
in terms of eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity.
The former is acheivable, the latter is not.
I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though (from
my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women. Instead of
describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "reasonable."
This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame the
debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases
such as "radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender
paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk in plain terms of
fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss gendered
differences in the salary received for equivalent jobs, there's no
reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist complex, ossified
patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal---simply
put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money than a man for the
same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist ideology, it's
an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the name
"feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our allies.
Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at
semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral
Politics." Think about what used to be called tax "cuts"---the
popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans stopped using the word
"cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more difficult to
say that one is against "tax relief." But note that in introducing
this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes are
a burden, when one could argue that they are really the
responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society. In
terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to support
our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the quality of
the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist" (or
even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive,
particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as generic
fairness issues.
I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of
hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why
things are the way they are. I also realize that as intellectuals, we
have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses. Nevertheless,
by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e., by accepting
that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think we
get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and
men too!). Then, by framing "feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we have a
better chance of actually improving the world, as opposed to
alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies.
~j
--0-967274517-1131326410=:85565
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
This response helps me understand exactly why I agree with the ideas of equal
opportunities for women, yet have no desire, in fact negative desire, to call
myself a feminist. It's the same reason I don't call myself anything really; a
republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic. I don't like labels. I
like to simply decide how I feel per issue. The only label I'll take is
"reasonablist", I like that.
I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making disclaimers about her response is
clearly a way of 1) showing humbleness and plurality of opinion, as James
mentions as a possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a discussion
about a subject she's not well read on. It's very possible that someone's
response could change her opinion, so she's showing up front that's she's not
100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be in general - humble and
open-minded.
Melanie James Mickens <jmickens Æ eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it trying to
prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can do and vice versa? Or
is it to prove that women have a somewhat different (yet equally valuable) set
of skills that should be cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the
feminist goal some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists
trying to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly gendered method
of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that the "better" way to make a
point is to use the stereotypically male voice, i.e., one that is bolder and
eschews qualifiers. However, one could argue that the use of qualifiers
indicates humbleness and an openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of
femin!
ism to
get women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the inherent
value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me. In fact, it's often
hard for me to divine the extent to which "feminism" in the abstract accepts or
denies the malleability of human behavior and intellect, and the extent to
which gendered differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of professionalism in
society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive consumption, a
hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of intelligence is
prioritized--creates a system in which women must fit into traditional
patriarchical roles in order to equalize." Presumably, the word "consumption"
was modified with "excessive" in a pejorative sense. So, is pejorative
consumption a distinctly male trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait?
In positing the existence of one form of
intelligence that is overvalued, we implicitly posit the existence of a
second, "female" intelligence that is undervalued. But is this female
intelligence *intrinsically* linked with the biological condition of being
female, or is an artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this
time? By saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female characteristics that
are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable male roles. But such an
analysis assumes that men and women are in fact essentially different at their
cores. If this is true, then should feminists be pushing for strict equality,
or separate but equivalent? Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards
feminism because she directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any
mysogyny left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
live my life as I choose, the sa!
me way in
which any man can." I agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people
comfortable with themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological adjective. From
the biological anthropologist perspective, it's unrealistic to think that
gendered aesthetics will ever completely go away. It's true that notions of
beauty are socially constructed, but just because they're imaginary doesn't
mean that people will stop daydreaming. Every society has ideals of
attractiveness---this is just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to
destroy ideals of attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and
less self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
"radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering goal which
is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered aesthetics. Once again, I
think that the feminism should be f!
ormulated
in terms of making people comfortable with themselves, not in terms of
eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity. The former is
acheivable, the latter is not. I never use the term "feminist" to describe
myself, even though (from my perspective at least) I believe in empowering
women. Instead of describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as
"reasonable." This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame
the debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases such as
"radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender paradigm." We will win
more converts if we talk in plain terms of fairness and reasonableness. For
example, when we discuss gendered differences in the salary received for
equivalent jobs, there's no reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist
complex, ossified patterns of systematic discr!
imation,
etc. Here's the deal---simply put, it's not fair for women to recieve less
money than a man for the same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist
ideology, it's an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the
name "feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our allies.
Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at semantic
framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral Politics." Think about
what used to be called tax "cuts"---the popular term now is tax "relief."
Republicans stopped using the word "cut" and starting using "relief" because
it's much more difficult to say that one is against "tax relief." But note that
in introducing this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes
are a burden, when one could argue that they are really the responsibility of
all citizens living in a caring civil society. In terms of moving public
opinion, the language t!
hat we
use to support our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the
quality of the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist"
(or even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive,
particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as generic fairness
issues. I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of hand since,
as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why things are the way they
are. I also realize that as intellectuals, we have distaste for the Straussian
simplification that is often necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed
masses. Nevertheless, by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e.,
by accepting that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think
we get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and men
too!). Then, by f!
raming
"feminist" issues as "fairness" issues that speak to everyone's sense of
decency, I think that we have a better chance of actually improving the world,
as opposed to alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies. ~j
--0-967274517-1131326410=:85565--
|
