Feminist Theories: Dualism, Objectivity, Intersectionality
The definitions of “Feminism” and “Feminist” from “The Feminist Dictionary” (Paula Treichler and Cheris Kramarae) and “Lexicon Of The Debates” (Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Barttowski) provided a nicely succinct overview of the histories and components of the major feminist theories.
*
One thing that has always attracted me to feminism, which comes up in both articles, is the intentional challenging of our society’s dualist thinking. I particularly connected with the Rush and Mander passage from “The Feminist Dictionary” which spoke of feminism as uniting previously so-called incompatible elements into “harmonious parts of a whole” (Treichler & Kramarae). It also spoke of feminism being a path, a world perspective which is constantly growing and changing.
I have never believed in ideas like objectivity, or dualism; perhaps it was because I wasn’t raised with strict religious beliefs, but I’ve never had much of a problem with not knowing the “ultimate” truths or with new ideas coming in and challenging my paradigm. As I’ve learned more about political ideas-particularly feminism-this has proved to be an asset: I do not fear new ideas and hence, growth. Feminism strikes me as a “friendly” ideology in that way; it encourages such new ideas and growth. In fact, “feminist” is one of the only labels I feel comfortable giving myself, because I (if not many others) understand it is a concept that encompasses many levels of awareness and opinion.
*
An idea that came up a number of times in “Lexicons” is intersectionality. A critique of second-wave’s focus on straight, white, middle-class women, it encourages women of all social locations to announce themselves as individuals with differences among other women. It recognizes that we are shaped not just by our sex/gender, but by sexuality, race, social class, and a myriad of other identities and positions. Intersectionality also challenges dualism by insisting that it’s not just about men and women, but about a oppressive system that survives on othering people for a variety of reasons.
I believe that ignoring our differences or comparing oppressions will not get us anywhere. It’s just what those in power want-if the little people squabble amongst themselves, then they’ll certainly never be united enough to actually overthrow anything. That’s why ideas like bell hooks’ and Audre Lorde’s are so important-we can recognize our differences and examine them in order to better understand the social circumstances of oppression.
*
One thing that has always attracted me to feminism, which comes up in both articles, is the intentional challenging of our society’s dualist thinking. I particularly connected with the Rush and Mander passage from “The Feminist Dictionary” which spoke of feminism as uniting previously so-called incompatible elements into “harmonious parts of a whole” (Treichler & Kramarae). It also spoke of feminism being a path, a world perspective which is constantly growing and changing.
I have never believed in ideas like objectivity, or dualism; perhaps it was because I wasn’t raised with strict religious beliefs, but I’ve never had much of a problem with not knowing the “ultimate” truths or with new ideas coming in and challenging my paradigm. As I’ve learned more about political ideas-particularly feminism-this has proved to be an asset: I do not fear new ideas and hence, growth. Feminism strikes me as a “friendly” ideology in that way; it encourages such new ideas and growth. In fact, “feminist” is one of the only labels I feel comfortable giving myself, because I (if not many others) understand it is a concept that encompasses many levels of awareness and opinion.
*
An idea that came up a number of times in “Lexicons” is intersectionality. A critique of second-wave’s focus on straight, white, middle-class women, it encourages women of all social locations to announce themselves as individuals with differences among other women. It recognizes that we are shaped not just by our sex/gender, but by sexuality, race, social class, and a myriad of other identities and positions. Intersectionality also challenges dualism by insisting that it’s not just about men and women, but about a oppressive system that survives on othering people for a variety of reasons.
I believe that ignoring our differences or comparing oppressions will not get us anywhere. It’s just what those in power want-if the little people squabble amongst themselves, then they’ll certainly never be united enough to actually overthrow anything. That’s why ideas like bell hooks’ and Audre Lorde’s are so important-we can recognize our differences and examine them in order to better understand the social circumstances of oppression.