Up Front: Say When
522 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
And what about Mary Astell?
If all men are born free, how is it that all Women are born slaves? as they must be if the being subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary Will of Men, be the perfect Condition of Slavery? and if the Essence of Freedom consists, as our Masters say it does, in having a standing Rule to live by?
Written in 1700.
-
Deborah, in reply to
I've had her as a Friday Feminist in the past, and I keep on meaning to get around to writing a post about her. An amazing woman.
ETA: 'her' being Christine de Pizan.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I've had her as a Friday Feminist in the past
I remember that.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It sank in for me, but it could well have been because it was a man writing it for men. Probably the first essay I've read where I actually felt ashamed of myself, recognizing some key things he said far more than I recognized them in works by women on the subject.
Classic example of talking on behalf, though, he acknowledged that he was very much influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, whose published writings are very few, but clearly had a huge impact on John. It took my own partner at the time to point out there was at least a bookshelf of published stuff written by women on the subject well before him, when I claimed he was really forward thinking.
-
recordari, in reply to
Word.
...to the mother.
I suspect people crowding to cite old Christine aren’t exactly a very common occurrence.
This is certainly a first for me.
-
“First-wave” feminisim usually refers to late 18th-century (Enlightenment era) through to the early 20th century (when women were gaining suffrage and other political rights in most of the Western World). That cetainly doesn’t mean there weren’t feminist writers or theorists in earlier times; I’m glad to learn about Christine de Pisan.
Oh and wikipedia has a nice clear definition of second-wave vs. first-wave:
First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the 19th and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. It focused on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).
The term first-wave was coined retroactively in the 1970s. The women’s movement then, focusing as much on fighting de facto (unofficial) inequalities as de jure ones, acknowledged its predecessors by calling itself second-wave feminism.
ETA: of course the whole "wave" business can get a bit messy when you look at what these writers actually said. There's actually plenty of stuff written about the politics of personal relations in the so called "first wave". So it's not necessarily a very helpful label.
-
Part II: I'm just gonna continue ranting on here in general response to the debate up to the point of my comment posted at 4ish. Don't mean to ignore any in between - or before - but there are too many to respond directly to all of them.
I think the debate so far has kind of got sidetracked by a largely semantic question over the usefulness of the label feminist without much discussion of feminist politics. I notice few have responded directly to my comments but I take much of what has been said since Wham is a response to my first contention that those people who raise concerns about the sexual objectification of the female form through wet t-shit competitions, Baywatch, pornography - ETC - are furthering the feminist cause, even if they prefer to be identified as Martians, and those who hold these people up for ridicule rather than considered analysis, eg., "here's a real doozie" (Emma) are doing the cause - as defined above - a significant disservice, whether they call themselves feminists or not.
'Lifestyle feminist' is Greer's term poached here to describe people who call themselves feminists (when it suits?) but seem to focus their anger and 'politics' against, well, feminists, all the while advocating women's and girls' right to show plenty cleavage at the pub, lots of leg at high school, wet tits in t-shirts - for the purposes of a competition! and expecting no-one to be concerned.
Emma if it wasn't you who who said you entered a WTC and had lots of fun, my apologies. Megan? I haven't got the energy to go that far back in the thread. But I didn't assume fun was had, the person said they had fun. Which is fine, it's just - I'm sorry - not feminist, not by my way of thinking.
While concerns raised can be clumsy and interfering and offensive, I think the intention of the concern - to bring about awareness that hopefully leads to change in the prevailing models for female behaviour and appearance that are either heavily sexual or primly square (the Madonna/whore dichotomy) - should not be lost in our rush to condemn these concerns as presumptuous impositions on a women's right to autonomy in all things.
Autonomy and 'choice' unencumbered by any duties or substantive rights against discrimination is the neo-liberal thing, feminism is about freedom from oppression and that implies a fight against some kind of resistance and the power to wage that fight. Presently in NZ women have the right to wear as little as they want. Perhaps not entirely at school but the public school uniforms involve a LOT less material than the private school uniforms. The state doesn't tell girls, much less women, to cover up much - does it? In the west that particular fight - against religious prudery - is more or less won. The bigger battles lie elsewhere and are very far from won. -
recordari, in reply to
It sank in for me, but it could well have been because it was a man writing it for men.
At the time I do recall it gaining traction, but to claim I remember the substantive parts after 24 years without re-reading it, which I haven’t, would be overstating it just a little.
Perhaps interestingly, or not, it was at about this time I was reading Simone de Beauvoir. That seemed to make a more lasting impression, but again I think a re-read is probably in order.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
when I claimed he was really forward thinking
I remember feeling quite depressed reading the work of 19th century feminist theorists, just beacuse they seemed to be saying much the same things, and fighting much the same battles, as we have been in the last few decades.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
'Lifestyle feminist' is Greer's term poached here to describe people who call themselves feminists (when it suits?) but seem to focus their anger and 'politics' against, well, feminists, all the while advocating women's and girls' right to show plenty cleavage at the pub, lots of leg at high school, wet tits in t-shirts - for the purposes of a competition! and expecting no-one to be concerned.
Out of interes: who should be concerned? And why?
While concerns raised can be clumsy and interfering and offensive, I think the intention of the concern - to bring about awareness that hopefully leads to change in the prevailing models for female behaviour and appearance that are either heavily sexual or primly square (the Madonna/whore dichotomy) - should not be lost in our rush to condemn these concerns as presumptuous impositions on a women's right to autonomy in all things.
I'm having some difficulty not reaching the conclusion that you actually blame the women and girls in question for the madonna/whore complex.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Same shit, different century.
What hit me from Mill was, having discussed vile tyrannies of all kinds, particularly slavery, he said:
"How different are these cases from that of the power of men over women!.....The clodhopper exercises, or is to exercise, his share of the power equally with the highest nobleman. And the case is that in which the desire of power is the strongest: for every one who desires power, desires it most over those who are nearest to him...If ever any system of privilege and enforced subjection had its yoke tightly riveted on the necks of those who are kept down by it, this has."Somehow that struck a nerve, I saw the desire for power like that in myself, but I had never considered it quite so revolting as working a man to death, or sending them into an arena to fight each other. It was the first time I'd really opened my eyes to quite how constant the oppression of women was. At least the oppressed man had his woman to grind under him.
-
If feminism is, broadly speaking, a struggle for equality with men (by defeating an overbearing patriarchy), do we need a definition of 'equal'?
In some circumstances, equality is relatively easy to define: Pay equality is a simple enough concept, especially for office jobs - you do the same work, you get the same pay.
Equality in the eyes of the law is easy in most circumstances, but I can see that it might throw up a few gnarly curlers.
But I can think of more than a few circumstances where nutting out the finer details is going to be a really hard ask, for both genders.
What is the end goal here, crudely speaking? I'm after something a bit more concrete than 'overthrow the patriarchy'.
-
Megan Clayton, in reply to
What is the end goal here, crudely speaking?
For me, it's the transformation of society as part of a wider movement for social justice (which for me, again, would include democratic socialism) to the extent that gender equality is both consistently upheld as a "first principle" of the state and within the lives of individuals and groups.
You can infer from that intersectionality the extent to which I consider sexism on the left wing along with the politically conservative beliefs of some branches of feminism (none discussed here, I might add) to be problematic in this regard.
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
You are a wondrous woman. Here was I thinking about how to answer that question, and bang! Perfect.
-
sally jones, in reply to
Women who succeed in science are mostly forced to become clones of the worst sexists and work harder at the damn science than any man. They are scorned if they wear anything other than the uniform of the female scientist, you know, sensible shoes and ugly glasses. I’ve been in scientific meetings where ideas were only worthwhile when they were repeated by a man. I HATE all that shit. It destroys incredibly talented valuable people. I drove myself into depression fighting against sexist pricks here, admittedly not just fighting over the sexism, but it was a part. But I still don’t call myself a feminist.
Bart, please call yourself a feminist. I will from now on (if that's all right by you). I wonder if you have had cause to post this kind of stuff before on PA or discuss it in any other public forum? This seems borderline illegal under current sex-discrimination law. With the amount of crap that's in the media about 'political correctness' having gone too far (against men), it would be very useful if this kind of thing were brought to light and debated - beyond the blogosphere. But it's useful here too, as depressing and emotional as it is.
Giovanni, I'm kind of wanting to say the same thing to you as it seems to me you realise the complexity of the issues better than most and are prepared to fess up to not having understood it all and still having "a lot of shit there" and realising that "you can't just wish it or reason it away." I appreciate your honesty and openness- even if you're disinclined to identify with the hard-core fems like me.
Jackie Clark: much much humbles to you my friend. I wish I could get there without all the rage but, alas, I cannot seem to.
Danielle: Cheers sister. I'll see your "total fucking bull-shit" and raise you a "sexist, ignorant cock-chop." Just came to me, sorry for the rude. I'm getting a bit worn down here. But I appreciate what feels like a whole lot of support (for the cause) coming from your corner, not to presume anything in the way of support for my personal views, of course.
To the person who accused me of making "deliberately provocative remarks" and then said that this was what "ideologues do a lot, rather than discussing actual ideas" - I made a note, but not of the name, was it perchance NZlemming? whomever. To that person I say my remarks were intended to 'provoke' a real debate on important feminist issues rather than the feminist-bashing that I felt had been the main thrust of the 'discussion' (very one-sided) to that point. Sadly the blogoshpere doesn't tend to allow for any kind of thorough explication of actual substantive ideas but elsewhere I have published about 100,000 words in a PhD thesis that does attempt some kind of amplification of my feminist politics and ideology in the form of actual ideas.
-
Sadly the blogoshpere doesn’t tend to allow for any kind of thorough explication of actual substantive ideas but elsewhere I have published about 100,000 words in a PhD thesis that does attempt some kind of amplification of my feminist politics and ideology in the form of actual ideas.
I guess the >100,000 words of feminist analysis on my blog just doesn't count as 'actual ideas'. That's one hell of a put-down to the women here who write their own blogs, exploring feminism and what it means for them, and how feminist ideas are manifested in, and are informed by, their lived experience.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
That's one hell of a put-down to the women here who write their own blogs, exploring feminism and what it means for them, and how feminist ideas are manifested in, and are informed by, their lived experience.
Not to mention Emma's work generally and this very blog post we're commenting on. As if hers weren't actual ideas, and this forum wasn't a place where ideas are dicussed. Staggering stuff.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
To the person who accused me of making “deliberately provocative remarks” and then said that this was what “ideologues do a lot, rather than discussing actual ideas” – I made a note, but not of the name, was it perchance NZlemming?
It was. Sorry, I had no idea looking back through the comments to confirm that would be so difficult. We're used to it here.
whomever. To that person I say my remarks were intended to ‘provoke’ a real debate on important feminist issues rather than the feminist-bashing that I felt had been the main thrust of the ‘discussion’ (very one-sided) to that point.
Hmm. Our mileage varies. The only bashing I saw was of Emma, the Reluctant (Sex-positive) Feminist. Is your screen reflective, perchance?
Sadly the blogoshpere doesn’t tend to allow for any kind of thorough explication of actual substantive ideas but elsewhere I have published about 100,000 words in a PhD thesis that does attempt some kind of amplification of my feminist politics and ideology in the form of actual ideas.
Again with the varying mileage. Giovanni, over at BatBeanBeam, does very well at such endeavours, to name just one. Perhaps, dear Brutus, the fault lies not in your stars...
If you've devoted so many words to explain your position, but can't sum it up succinctly, perhaps you're doing something wrong.
__"Je n'ai fait cette lettre - ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte" - Blaise Pascal
-
Emma if it wasn't you who who said you entered a WTC and had lots of fun, my apologies. Megan? I haven't got the energy to go that far back in the thread. But I didn't assume fun was had, the person said they had fun.
I have been back over the thread, and I will give a pony (sparkles optional) to anyone, ANYONE who can find this comment.
'Lifestyle feminist' is Greer's term poached here to describe people who call themselves feminists (when it suits?) but seem to focus their anger and 'politics' against, well, feminists, all the while advocating women's and girls' right to show plenty cleavage at the pub, lots of leg at high school, wet tits in t-shirts - for the purposes of a competition! and expecting no-one to be concerned.
I am going to assume there is some way in which Sally hasn't been focusing her anger on, well, feminists right here. Because that's bad, apparently. But, as she hasn't answered 'was the offence deliberate ' question, or the 'do you think that term adequately describes ME' question, I have to assume, given the number of opportunities to back away, that the answers are both yes. Which is interesting.
Obviously Sally and I disagree. People can make up their own minds. Possibly on the basis of this, but then, that's just words on the internet, right? Not important, like a thesis. I'm not sure where my Honours essay on JS Mill fits into that continuum.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I have been back over the thread, and I will give a pony (sparkles optional) to anyone, ANYONE who can find this comment.
Google gets me a pony?! With sparkles?! It was in the original blog post:
There is one thing I do know, though, in my cloud of ignorance of proper girl-stuff. I hid my body for far too long when I was younger, out of shame and insecurity. That was when my choice of clothing was overly-influenced by social expectations, not on Tits Out For Ourselves Day. My confidence to dress as I please is precious, and I think it's feminist, and I'm not going to put it away in a hurry. And apparently, as long as we're still having this argument, exposing boobage is practically activism. (About twenty years ago, I did enter a wet t-shirt competition. I knew exactly what I was doing and why, thanks.)
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Lilith: I know I said I'd been in a wet t-shirt competition. I have. Sally claims I said I had lots of fun. Possibly I also giggled, and tossed my hair. I deliberately didn't give my reasons or describe my experience, but left it blank for people to fill in for themselves.
-
I’m not sure where my Honours essay on JS Mill fits into that continuum.
Nor my Masters in political science.
Sally. I challenge you to find anywhere I have focussed anger on you, or any other feminist. Challenged yes, vehemently disagreed with, sure. But anger? No.
On the other hand, you've implied I call myself a feminist when it is convenient, you have agreed with other women who called me a slut, and you've suggested that I am unthinking in my feminism.
You've also implied that I am not an activist. That my feminism is waffly crap, and I don't 'do anything'. If you'd like to have a conversation of the work I try to do for less privileged women, I am happy to email you.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Lilith: I know I said I’d been in a wet t-shirt competition. I have. Sally claims I said I had lots of fun.
Damn! No pony.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
I still think you should get a pony, but just cos I like you.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Aw :-) I like you too! Lets all have ponies.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.