The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Alien Nation and Feminism
LoserForHireX
Philosopher KingThe AcademyRegistered User regular
Philosopher KingThe AcademyRegistered User regular
I am a white middle class male in America, and I'm well aware that I'm the white devil.
Recently I've taken a class on Gender in the United States, and it's opened my eyes more to the way that our society treats gender but more importantly the way society treats women. I find myself sympathizing as much as I can, not having experienced anything of the sort.
Now, there is such a thing as Feminist Ethics. With the little that I understand of such, the concentration is on ethical questions in different areas, such as the ethics of family, interpersonal relationships with loved ones. Things that get glossed over by traditional male centered ethical pursuits. I am concerned about those questions as well, but the language involved in the phrase "Feminist Ethics" makes me feel a bit alienated (a feeling that I know women are quite familiar with) and I wonder if using such language as "Women's Studies," "Women's Psychology" and "Feminist Ethics" only serves to alienate men.
Another question this raises is whether it only serves to keep women thought of as the "other." If we call one discipline psychology, and another women's psychology I fear that it only creates the perception that women are abnormal, that they are "others."
Of course, I think that such things need to be integrated as much as possible. There will be some times that such a thing is impossible. Women have health issues that men don't have, but then again, the converse is true as well.
I guess the question that I propose is this. Does the language of Feminist ______ or Women's _____ serve to alienate men from those things when in reality attention deserves to be paid to those things by men? Also, does the language serve to raise the status of Women, or keep it lower by treating them as some kind of other?
Recently I've taken a class on Gender in the United States, and it's opened my eyes more to the way that our society treats gender but more importantly the way society treats women. I find myself sympathizing as much as I can, not having experienced anything of the sort.
Now, there is such a thing as Feminist Ethics. With the little that I understand of such, the concentration is on ethical questions in different areas, such as the ethics of family, interpersonal relationships with loved ones. Things that get glossed over by traditional male centered ethical pursuits. I am concerned about those questions as well, but the language involved in the phrase "Feminist Ethics" makes me feel a bit alienated (a feeling that I know women are quite familiar with) and I wonder if using such language as "Women's Studies," "Women's Psychology" and "Feminist Ethics" only serves to alienate men.
Another question this raises is whether it only serves to keep women thought of as the "other." If we call one discipline psychology, and another women's psychology I fear that it only creates the perception that women are abnormal, that they are "others."
Of course, I think that such things need to be integrated as much as possible. There will be some times that such a thing is impossible. Women have health issues that men don't have, but then again, the converse is true as well.
I guess the question that I propose is this. Does the language of Feminist ______ or Women's _____ serve to alienate men from those things when in reality attention deserves to be paid to those things by men? Also, does the language serve to raise the status of Women, or keep it lower by treating them as some kind of other?
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
LoserForHireX on
0
Posts
Certainly true, but I don't think that deals with either of the issues that I raised. Women can be interested in promoting the status of men as well, but they can still feel alienated by the language used everyday. I'm just wondering if it's really true that street runs both ways, and if feminist language can be alienating to men, by seemingly excluding them the same way that women are excluded. Not to mention whether the language promotes women's status, or prevents the rise of their status.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The trouble is, there are far more similarities between men and women than there are differences, and focusing on the differences may help to separate the two further.
I fully believe that calling it Women's Studies discourages men from taking it (or encourages them in some misguided attempt to appear sensitive and get a girl in a class full of women), which surely goes against the aims of the courses - to enlighten as to the inequalities, and feminism in general. It seems to mostly be preaching to the converted.
True - there seems to be a common belief that women want not just equality, but to take over the world and subjugate men, so many just ridicule feminism.
Men may not feel alienated by things such as Feminist Ethics, or Women's Studies. I merely want to investigate the possibility that using that type of language serves only to say "These things are for women, not for you men out there." If these things do send that kind of message, then there is a problem, because I certainly don't think that's what was intended.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It's a weird thing to try to argue both sides in a way that makes sense. I think it really goes to the heart of where problems start in feminist movements. I don't have an answer to how to deal with it, really, other than to parrot an essay I read that suggested we stop thinking in terms of "same/different" all together and move toward thinking in terms of power and restoring equality through that model.
Do you think by using the language of Feminist ____ and Women's ___ serves to do just this? And if so, since men are already the ones in power, does it just continue to keep women in second place?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The there's the fact that "Women's Studies" uses the possessive, so it sounds like the class is for women.
Is there anything in that classification that isn't biological in nature (such as pregnancy and other such issues dealing with the difference in physiology)?
My intuition says no, and that all other things should be the concern of both men and women, and should not be separated by the language of denoting it a "womens issue"
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Sure. The majority of rape and domestic abuse victims are women in this country. That's something that needs special attention.
Also I think you're getting caught up in the words there and giving them a bit too much weight - how else do we practically denote those social issues that primarily involve women and the needs of women?
It makes sense to me. It has to have a focus of the fact that there are similarities and there are differences, and that the differences need to be addressed (such as pregnancy, which you just mentioned), but that at the same time that the fact that these differences exist does not make one group (regardless of whether you are diving people by gender, race, nationality, culture, etc) different in a more fundamental sense.
At least, it makes sense in my head.
I think that really, it's a symptom, not a cause. I'm not suggesting that changing the wording would lead to vast changes in equality or an increase in men taking those classes, but it is a subtle way of suggesting that women's areas are somehow different to "normal" - that can be seen as degrading, or it could even be viewed as a privilege; some would say that this special focus on Women's __ increases awareness at least.
The 'feminist' in feminist ethics is asexual, so no. Women's studies should be gender studies, though. Not because it's more inclusive, but because it's more accurate. Otherwise, no I don't see it as alienating. None more so than 'gay rights' are exclusive to heterosexuals...which is to say not at all.
Is it asexual though? Feminists maintain that the supposedly gender neutral language used in English (such as referring to humanity as Man) is in fact slanted against women, would not the converse be true? I hadn't thought of the issue of Gay Rights though, good point.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't see why it implies you must be a female to be aligned with this viewpoint
I hate this business.
You know what I find insulting? The claim put forward by certain feminists in philosophy that logic is somehow a male drive, and that there needs to be a counterbalancing focus on feelings. Not only is it demeaning to women to suppose that logic belongs to men, but it's fundamentally confused to try to take the logic out of philosophy.
And frankly, anyone who is afraid or concerned and doesn't seek to rectify that through knowledge is probably not going to be drawn to the feminist movement regardless of what it is called.
This generally results from an American feminist butchering of French Feminism and Continental Philosophy. It's shit. For good modern feminism, I would recommend Judith Butler if you want the hardcore metaphysical gender stuff.
Really, it seems that a lot of problems that people have with feminism are overcome by the anti-essentialist works that are influenced. There is a lot of great literature on this matter and several other issues. I strongly suggest exploring authors like Butler if you're looking for a more critical understanding of feminist philosophy (thought this could be extended to any number of things, depending on your interests, given the diversity in continental philosophy/critical theory). I would also suggest the work of Felix Guattari (especially with Gilles Deleuze) - though it is not an entirely feminist philosophy, they have, in my opinion, one of the most productive ways of viewing things like gender. I have to warn you, though, that both Butler's and Deleuze and Guattari's works use fairly thick language (especially hard in the case of Deleuze and Guattari, since they have been translated to French and their works haven't been taken up for interpretation by a major part of academia) and probably require some background, at least in the form of a general introduction to their works.
Call it Gender Studies.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I mean, holy shit that guys language is absolutely impenetrable and I study Heidegger and Derrida! :P
Its _______ - ism where the blank is a referring to one gender. It is the -ism of empowering women. Given society's standards and the fact that sexism mainly harms women this is entirely understandable, but if you flip the term around and add a male prefix (i.e. masculinism) it becomes obvious how absurd it is to state that "feminism" is a neutral term for being in favour of gender equality.
By the fundamentally partisan (sexist?) nature of the term, it is about argument for greater women's rights naturally at the expense of male ones. Now if the women's right is to vote and the male one is to rape your wife this obviously makes sense, but if the situation is slightly more ambiguous (e.g. child support payments) the framing of the issue as "feminists fighting for the sisterhood versus men" instead of "gender equality activists versus chauvinists" is probably going to turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic.
So "gender equality" > "feminism"
My $0.02
Yeah, it's probably true.
But after reading a lot of secondary literature, I don't really have a problem with it anymore. I also put it to use a lot.
Could you explain how giving a group equal rights automatically is "at the expense" of another group's rights?
Who gives these rights? Are people empowered to give themselves rights? Then did they not already have these rights?
Letting women get promotions on the merit of their work rather than just giving it to the good old boy because he has a penis is totally at the male's expense. That just happens to be a good thing.
Well I'd say that the right to equal pay for equal work sure ain't bestowing itself upon anyone without a fight
Yes, all these "fem" subjects appear very alienating to me. I don't have any interest in learning about anything "fem". I don't care to see things from the "other perspective". I hang out with girls all the time. I study with em. Work with em. Play with em. We make jokes that are insulting to both men and women all the time. I say "chicks", she says "dudes". Whatever. Who cares. A human being is a human being. I see things from a human perspective. Act like a human being and I'll treat you like a human being.
Maybe it's because my generation hasn't really been exposed to any feminism (that I know of). It might be a problem in high-end business. I dunno. I haven't looked into it. I'd like to think it's just the previous generation holding on to their silly ideals.
Just a point of view from an average guy who hasn't looked into feminism. Disect it as you will.
YEA. Just because its "partisan" doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. One of the parties can be completely in the right.
I was referring to society/government given "rights." Like the right to vote. Or the "right" to beat your wife.
Yeah, there are a few women with axes to grind, but a lot of feminist thought is about examining your own assumptions and preconceptions, and understanding how they got there, and changing them if they are harmful.
we don't have them
Given that women have gotten the short end of the stick for forever the focus on women's roles isn't really a bad thing, but the male gender role has never been seriously challenged in the same way that the female has.
What is germane to my original question is that do you think that titling a class Women's Studies discourages men to take it? If so, is it because men feel alienated by the language of defining it as Women's Studies? Should men take such a class? Shouldn't the class encourage men to take it then?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well, at least for the most part, both women's and men's gender roles are being defined by the same thing, society. The movement by feminism to eliminate the rigidity of gender roles is ideally bi-directional, so that men can wear their dresses at the same time that women can wear their jeans, and ideally everyone can get meritocratic pay at their jobs.
Only men with small dicks.
I had a guidance counselor who told me I needed to take a history class. He suggested taking Medieval Studies and I said, "Why? Isn't that for medieval people?"
Exactly. Most of these issues become much clearer when you start looking at them in terms of power.
The implication that women's studies classes are "for women" is based in an inherently patriarchal notion that women's problems either aren't important enough to bother the menfolk with, or that women become dangerous and frightening when you give them a little power. It treats women's studies departments like either gossipy sewing circles or castrating witches covens. Men have no problem being interested in history or ancient languages or anthropology or any number of categories of study that involve learning about people that aren't exactly like them; reacting to women's studies as though men are off-limits is entirely irrational. (On the flip side of that coin, once in a while there is an idiot extremist who acts like men are unwelcome in such departments - fuck people like that right in the ear. We either deal with this problem together, or we spin our wheels. However, rumors of such stereotypical man-hating feminists in academia are greatly exaggerated.)
"For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong, there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.
For every boy who is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything, there is a girl tired of people not trusting her intelligence.
For every girl who is tired of being called over-sensitive, there is a boy who fears to be gentle, to weep.
For every boy for whom competition is the only way to provi his masculinity, there is a girl who is called unfeminine when she competes.
For every girl who throws out her E-Z Bake Oven, there is a boy who wishes to find one.
For every boy struggling not to let advertising dictate his desires, there is a girl facing the ad industry's attacks on her self-esteem.
For every girl who takes a step toward her liberation, there is a boy who finds the way to freedom a little easier."
- shamelessly stolen from crimethinc.com.
The issue of equal rights is corollary to the issue of equal roles. And when you have a group of people, divided down the middle, cordoned into equal halves, smashing the partition between them gives everybody freedom. This is not a zero-sum game.
You're missing the point entirely. It's not whether we're "different in a fundamental sense," it's whether said differences justify a power imbalance.
I don't know too much about Warren, Michigan. The impression I get is that Michiganders are all obese beer-chugging NASCAR fans. Pointing out everything that's lib'rul, rolling their eyes, whatever. I don't recall interacting with too many Michiganders, but for some reason that's just the thought in my head.
In other words, your entire post is based on an ignorant stereotype.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's because whenever men challenge traditionally female positions they simply become feminized as persons, or considered gay. See: male interior designers and nurses.
Feminine is the pharmakon upon which the Masculine forces into a binary opposition. It is everything which the Man is not, but whatever the Man needs it to operate as.
edit* That is to say, men are reproached because it is not a malleable term, whereas feminine is. Because masculine is always generally the positive term or at least the neutral one when juxtaposed with feminine.
not really an appropriate topic for this thread :P
also: hi5 Feral
Ah yeah, I was responding to the later post in the thread, sorry!
I agree that fewer men take Women's Studies courses than should, I was the only guy in a LOT of classes. Like, most of my women's studies classes. On the other hand, in Gender and Sex in Society and Psychology of Gender, the split was more along the lines of the demographics of the school (ie: still skewed towards women but not as much). However, I'm not sure that it was the name as much as the perception that the women were out to get the men - before I had taken classes with her, that lesbian professor had been described to me in all manner of derogatory ways (man-hating etc etc), but she was absolutely one of the nicest, most down to earth people I learned from in college.
I guess at heart, if the subject of the class is to study women in society, it should be called women's studies, in the same way that if a course is about studying African Americans in society, it should be African American studies, not Race studies. I'm not sure that changing the name will change the perception of "those man hating gender studiests."