Re: eek...this is long :(delphyne_September 30 2005, 18:53:46 UTC
"but that anti-feminist strategy has created a sort of "alter-feminism" which I like to call reactionary pseudofeminism. It's a feminism emptied of all its central arguments (difference in women's experience, the personal is the political, engaging with structures of oppression, recognizing inequalities that exist) but leaves the outer surface of feminism, the surface being its representation, which is not entirely determined by feminists"
I'm not clear if whether when you say that the reactionary right has "createded a sort of "alter-feminism" you're arguing this type of feminism actually exists or whether you are acknowledging that it is propgaganda disseminated by people who have a vested in interest in telling lies about what feminism is and what it isn't.
Re: eek...this is long :(altdrsmoothopSeptember 30 2005, 19:08:02 UTC
not exactly propaganda. I don't think it's that well-thought out. I actually think it's the product of the normal reaction men have when part of their privilege is exposed because of the efficacy of women's lib, and the real effect women's lib has had
( ... )
Re: eek...this is long :(chreebombSeptember 30 2005, 20:28:18 UTC
I think the key here is what feminism has done in representation, or how it has been spun in representation. I don't think many of the anti-feminists actually disagree with feminist tenets, but disagree with a culture they attribute to feminism at large.
I"m nodding my head right now. Because the same thing happens across all the -isms, it seems. The anti-"ism" group will say that they believe in the idea that, say, women are equal, but the execution of such ideals are so strikingly at odds.
Re: eek...this is long :(altdrsmoothopSeptember 30 2005, 20:39:39 UTC
yeah. I find that antifeminists don't think that women are equal, they just boil down their experience to one which is applicable to them. They want rape to be a trauma to men like it's a trauma to women, etc. And that's just washed out old fashioned sexism right, thinking men to be the default, and women to be inferior. It's only implicit, and when you point it out they'll tell you you're making a strawman argument, but the only reason that logic is in place is to implicitly ally male heteronormativity as the pinnacle of identity.
and I'm especially disconcerted by feeling that words such as "radfem" and "feminazi" have been so effectively appropriated by the conservative right, that they no longer stand for their feminist undertakings,
This is where you're still losing me because you're saying here that the term "feminazi" has been appropriated by the wingnuts. It wasn't. It was coined by the wingnuts. It is one of their perjorative terms for feminists--it can't be appropriated by them, only by us when we use it ironicly
( ... )
ok, i was under the impression that some identified under that name as a way to retake its resonance in the culture. I wasn't very sure of its origins but got the general sense that some people used the term for themselves
( ... )
I think it's your definition of radical that's causing you problems. Radical is taken to mean extreme and obscene in certain arenas however its use in the term "radical feminism" is quite specific i.e. going to the root, which is the historical meaning of the word: in radical feminism's case - the root of patriarchal oppression
( ... )
yeah, that's definitely the problem. i've always considered radical to mean "extreme" or "at the limits of control", which is funny, because now that I see that def., I see that that's the one that anti-feminists subscribe to. so, as per my other reply, I'm going to refer to myself as a postmodernist feminist, although I hope there is a better designation. after reading an excerpt in Kant scathing neologists, I'm not really willing to coin phrases so readily.
haha, jacques derrida would love that site. he had all sorts of neologisms, his most famous being differance, followed by trace, cinders, and dissemination.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I'm not clear if whether when you say that the reactionary right has "createded a sort of "alter-feminism" you're arguing this type of feminism actually exists or whether you are acknowledging that it is propgaganda disseminated by people who have a vested in interest in telling lies about what feminism is and what it isn't.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I"m nodding my head right now. Because the same thing happens across all the -isms, it seems. The anti-"ism" group will say that they believe in the idea that, say, women are equal, but the execution of such ideals are so strikingly at odds.
Reply
Reply
beautiful. your wording, i mean.
Reply
watch out! there's strawman in your house! least they don't say "strawwoman"
Reply
This is where you're still losing me because you're saying here that the term "feminazi" has been appropriated by the wingnuts. It wasn't. It was coined by the wingnuts. It is one of their perjorative terms for feminists--it can't be appropriated by them, only by us when we use it ironicly ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
yeah, that's definitely the problem. i've always considered radical to mean "extreme" or "at the limits of control", which is funny, because now that I see that def., I see that that's the one that anti-feminists subscribe to. so, as per my other reply, I'm going to refer to myself as a postmodernist feminist, although I hope there is a better designation. after reading an excerpt in Kant scathing neologists, I'm not really willing to coin phrases so readily.
I have to work on my clarity damnit!
Reply
http://cat.nyu.edu/cgi-bin/wickedary/index.cgi?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment