a) actually all three quotes are brutal (from the perspective of a contemporary third/fourth wave feminst) - especially the first one --- women don't have the same mental faculties as men? WTF?
b) Its true, first-wave feminsts were also pro-eugenics and were very racist - so I don't condone those perspectives. Thankfully, these ideas have been divorced from one another for quite sometime now.
c) "once you become pro one groups rights you seem to leave other groups in the dark" -- that's not true. Why does it have to be true?
d) re: books that portray "males in such a manor that we are more animal than human" - I don't know what to say about that other than a similar comment than my last. keep reading below...
First, I don't see why you are assuming that feminism has to believe any of those things you listed. I don't get it. Instead of being frustrated with the comments, why don't you juxtapose those writings (which seem to have come from articles on evolutionary biology) with contemporary feminist writings? Maybe then you will see that you have selected positions that are deliberatly male-deprecating.
Second, why people think that feminism has to do with hating-men just reflects the male-centric nature of contemporary discourse. Why can't feminism just be about women? It makes sense that first and second wave writings were defined by a comparison to men - ie: we do the same work for less pay, or we are just as capable of voting. However, when we make movement away from those topics, more recent writings on the issue have talked more about women for and as women, gender-ambiguity, transgender/transsexuality, gay and lesbian reflections on feminism --- which again, have nothing to do with men-hating.
This doesn't mean the 1st and 2nd wave topics aren't just as important - but they are also more institutionalised, and therefore academic or activist reflections can and have moved beyond.
Okay, Ro, your turn to answer some questions.... go!
b) Its true, first-wave feminsts were also pro-eugenics and were very racist - so I don't condone those perspectives. Thankfully, these ideas have been divorced from one another for quite sometime now.
c) "once you become pro one groups rights you seem to leave other groups in the dark" -- that's not true. Why does it have to be true?
d) re: books that portray "males in such a manor that we are more animal than human" - I don't know what to say about that other than a similar comment than my last. keep reading below...
First, I don't see why you are assuming that feminism has to believe any of those things you listed. I don't get it. Instead of being frustrated with the comments, why don't you juxtapose those writings (which seem to have come from articles on evolutionary biology) with contemporary feminist writings? Maybe then you will see that you have selected positions that are deliberatly male-deprecating.
Second, why people think that feminism has to do with hating-men just reflects the male-centric nature of contemporary discourse. Why can't feminism just be about women? It makes sense that first and second wave writings were defined by a comparison to men - ie: we do the same work for less pay, or we are just as capable of voting. However, when we make movement away from those topics, more recent writings on the issue have talked more about women for and as women, gender-ambiguity, transgender/transsexuality, gay and lesbian reflections on feminism --- which again, have nothing to do with men-hating.
This doesn't mean the 1st and 2nd wave topics aren't just as important - but they are also more institutionalised, and therefore academic or activist reflections can and have moved beyond.
Okay, Ro, your turn to answer some questions.... go!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment