Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511091515010.8066 &AElig harvest.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511091759540.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511091515010.8066 &AElig harvest.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:38:30 -0500 (EST)
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: moving on
Status: O

you've got me thinking hard about this.  I'm ready to give up the label 
radical feminist (just updated the whiteboard), but not feminist.  Your 
points are good, but I think you're discounting the social force of 
Imitation.  The more people who call themselves feminists the more 
socially acceptable it will be, with all the concomitant ideology.

--- \/   FROM James W Mickens AT 05.11.09 17:41 (Today)   \/ ---

>> Oppression of women is objective
>> reality by any reasonable definition of "objective"
>> and "reality."  To steal from Richard Dawkins, my
>> advice to those still in doubt is simply, "go away and
>> read a book."
>
> Two people can agree on the empirical realities of a problem but disagree
> on the language that should be used to frame the debate. I can agree that
> there is misogyny in the world and that this misogyny is a problem without
> adopting such a strident tone. One reason that many people don't want to
> label themselves as "feminists" is that they feel uncomfortable with what
> they perceive the "feminist vernacular" to be. It's true that some of this
> perception is based on ignorance of the literature, but I think that a
> non-trivial amount of feminist literature has a lusty love affair with the
> hyperbolic. In popular culture, we hear things like Gloria Steinem's quote
> that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." But things can get
> even more outlandish in actual papers, e.g., when Marilyn Frye claims that
> "the parasitism of males on females" is objectively obvious, such that
> "males tend in shockingly significant and alarming numbers and in alarming
> degree to fall into mental illness, petty crimes, alcoholism, physical
> infirmity, chronic unemployment, drug addiction, and neurosis when
> deprived of the care and companionship of a female." The notion of "male
> as parasite" is a provocative one. Ignoring the accuracy or inaccuracy of
> this metaphor, it's fairly obvious that language like this is very
> dramatic and will make many people uncomfortable, even those who agree
> with the general premise that misogyny exists and is a problem. The use of
> such flowery prose and extended metaphor results in legitimate feminist
> critiques being misunderstood or discounted out of hand. For example,
> consider Michelle's comment about body images: "the female ideal of
> fragile stick-thin bodies is yet another means of encouraging women to
> take up less space in the world." When I originally read this, I was just
> as confused as Andrew Reeves. Was this meant to be a metaphor, a literal
> statement relating female size to empowerment, or a combination of the
> two? I don't think that I'm railing against a "straw feminist" when I
> claim that such ornamented language obscures the discourse. I'm also not
> railing against a "straw feminist" when I object to notions of
> hyper-plastic gender aesthetics. Michelle says that we must address "the
> intimate connection between feminine and beauty and the conflating of
> self-worth with an unhealthy aesthetic." I agree with the latter
> (conflating self-worth with an unhealthy aesthetic is the crux of the
> body-image problem), but we need to be realistic about the former (there
> will always be connections between femininity and beauty). I'm sure that
> Michelle didn't mean to imply that such connections can be totally
> abolished, but this isn't plain from the language, particularly when one
> dubs oneself a "radical feminist." Both of these examples show the need
> for simple, plain language when addressing important issues such as
> women's rights.
>
> Some say that to pull the center to the left, the progressive lexicon
> needs a certain boldness, a dramatic flair that paints the urgency of the
> liberal cause in broad, existential strokes. Fair enough. There is a time
> and a place for soaring oratory. There is a time and a place for the
> majestic words of a Martin Luther King. But remember that his lyricism was
> an inclusive one. In our attempts to move the center towards the left, we
> must not forget that the center has a language of its own. We cannot
> forget that the center has its entrenched interests, and that when
> presented with radical language, it will move in reactionary ways. The
> center is not an abstract political zone defined by the edges of the
> spectrum. It is a living, breathing collective comprised of people who we
> can recruit to our cause if we use the right arguments and the right
> words. I'd bet that the inclusive words of Martin Luther King touched the
> souls of more people than the separatist, divisive rhetoric of Huey Newton
> and the Black Panthers. You might say that radical feminism isn't
> separatist, but it is by the very fact that when one *chooses* to be
> called "radical," one chooses to define oneself in *opposition* to the
> majority, not in *partnership* with the majority to improve the prospects
> of everyone. The latter is what results in change, the former is what
> convinces people who are already on your side. I don't think that sexism
> or racism are so subtly entrenched yet so devastatingly pernicious that we
> have to launch some sort of intellectual Bolshevik revolution, closed and
> unknowable to a general population which is too backwards to understand
> its importance.
>
> Yes, sexism is real. Yes, the existence of racism is an objective reality.
> To argue otherwise is lunacy. But here's another objective reality:
> America has been moving to the right for the past thirty years. Democrats
> have watched key constituencies like unions bleed away into the darkness.
> Hispanics, the fastest growing minority group, are not axiomatically
> Democratic like African Americans have been for decades. For a progressive
> who cares about bringing social justice beyond the theoretical confines of
> the middle class ivory walls of academia, these are disturbing trends. The
> Democrats don't control any of the three branches of government. The
> political fortunes of hardcore progressives are even more dire. Can we
> continue to rely on a center-left lower-level judiciary as the protector
> of cherished civil rights, particularly when judges steeped in the
> struggles of the Civil Rights movement are rapidly aging and being
> replaced by conservatives?
>
> Assume that the views of radical feminism are correct. Assume that, as
> Michelle said so eloquently, "the very institutions in which we live
> currently foster discrimination/oppression; a fundamental reexamination
> of hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from these institutions is
> necessary to get to a new place." Assume that this is our best hope to
> achieve gender equality.
>
> Does this even matter if we can't get politicians elected who are willing
> to enact this agenda?
>
> If people are alienatated by the language of a righteous movement, that
> movement is impotent. And if that movement is truly righteous, if that
> movement truly has the potential to change people's lives, then to insist
> on couching its goals in a language without mass appeal is a tragic
> mistake. In fact, it is a *moral* mistake, because the result is
> unnecessary suffering for people who could have been helped earlier and
> more effectively.
>
> In my opinion, it is a mistake to use the phrase "radical feminism" when,
> at its essence, its goal is (or should be) the thoroughly *unradical*
> notion of equality and freedom for women. The use of the word "radical"
> implies "extreme," but there is nothing extreme in wanting people to be
> treated in a fair manner. Furthermore, the use of elaborate and exhaustive
> deconstructionalist techniques to reveal insidious hidden biases obscures
> the real message of feminism: women should and must be equal partners in a
> just society. Erica's suggestions about how to address misogyny were
> excellent, but by no means were they radical, and by no means do they
> require a "a fundamental reexamination of hidden assumptions and social
> norms."
>
> My critique of so-called radical feminism is not predicated on my
> underexposure to the literature. Furthermore, my critique is agnostic as
> to the correctness of radical feminist analysis. Instead, my critique is a
> pragmatic one. It is grounded in my desire to create effective social
> change instead of reams of academic papers that overflow with trenchant
> cultural observations. My question is this: if progressives continue to
> cling to divisive, obtuse language that cannot create sustained,
> large-scale political change, then who are we being progressive for? Are
> we really helping the oppressed, or just satisfying our predilections for
> theory? Are progressives afraid of that other "p" word: pragmatism?
>
> Having good intentions simply
>                        isn't
>                         good
>                          enough.
>
> ~j
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld

"I like work; it fascinates me. I can sit and
look at it for hours." -- Jerome K. Jerome