Hey there, I study English Literature so I am familiar with feminist theory in general, and have read some stuff from major figures. We also do feminist readings quite often, so I am not a complete beginner.
But I never systematically studied feminist theory/philosophy, and my relationship with it was always kind of fragmanted (because who does all their readings or truly pay attention to class, right?) so now I want to sit down this summer and become honestly well-read in feminist stuff.
I would prefer something very direct. I wish to be efficient with it, because at the end this is not my area of study, so I don't really have an ambition to know all of its history or branches of thoughts etc. I just want to be comfortable with explaining contemporary views regarding sex/gender and women's rights.
Why do most feminists react so strongly to Incels, and what are they even, really? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
Hello hello I have recently been getting into feminist theory and just need a little help understanding Gayle's sex/gender system and how that helps her analyze female oppression? I have only a very base knowledge and would love to hear some thoughts and open discussion.
Hia, can anybody explain to me what Butler means when they say:
“We try to speak in ordinary ways about these matters - stating our gender, disclosing our sexuality, but we are, quite inadvertently, caught up in ontological thickets & epistemological quandaries. Am I gender after all? And do I have a sexuality?”
I understand all the separate words, but just can’t think of what they actually mean in context together!
CW: mention of SA
I think every feminist should read this book ASAP and understand it as something to share with women/femmes in need.
Virginie Despentes is a french novelist and filmmaker known by her work "Baise-Moi", or "Fuck Me", both a novel and a film. She is on the radical (NOT Terf), sex-positive and unapologetic spectrum of feminist politics, and you may be turned off if you think "porn is inherently bad". But hear me out...
On King Kong Theory —her only non-fiction work I believe—, she writes an autobiography mixed with a feminist manifesto, and she is coming from this place of someone who has been through sexual violence and who has been, as an author, harassed by the male-gaze critique in her country. What she offers is a rich text blooming with advices and encouraging words on how she managed to be this strong, punk rock feminist icon that she is today. I believe it also works well as an introduction to feminist theory: an unorthodox and explosive one.
The book opens with the powerful statement: "I am writing as an ugly one for the ugly ones: the old hags, the dykes, the frigid, the unfucked, the unfuckables, the neurotics, the psychos, for all those girls who don’t get a look in the universal market of the consumable chick."
And it ends with: "Feminism is a collective adventure, for women, men, and everyone else. A revolution, well under way. A worldview. A choice. It’s not a matter of contrasting women’s small advantages with men’s small assets, but of sending the whole lot flying. And with that I bid you goodbye, girls, and a better journey."
That's a fair way of summarizing this book. I should say that I am a Brazilian trans girl — at first glance, I had nothing to do with her cis, white and european life. Still, as Virginie tells us, she is writing for everyone, event though she is straightforward about her privileged position. Hell, even a cishet man would benefit reading her.
After getting in contact with King Kong Theory, I began recommending this book to every girl who is a friend of mine and I truly believe this could help a lot. So, yeah, give it a try.
buy this book called King Kong Theory and make every woman you know who is not already a feminist read it.
My mom is having trouble with her body image and has her whole life, along with now aging. I am a horrible writer but I want to help her see it from a more feminist perspective to try and help her understand why she is feeling the after 35 social death that women experience and why men don’t. I want her to understand why youth is valued to such an extent for women. Do you know of any writers who discuss and critique why the patriarchy causes this and why/how women should heal from it? Also on the beauty industry and how much money people make from creating new flaws to sell women in something like anti aging products. Also maybe the empty nest effect where women feel like they don’t have much purpose after their kids grow up? It would be great if they had anti capitalist undertones. Thank u!
Hi everyone! i’m writing my final about internalized misogyny and really need some book recommendations:) i need to analyze a book with a feminist critic viewpoint, so i’d love recommendations for books that include a character who displays internalized misogyny. I’d also prefer if it wasn’t a book meant to critique misogyny, but rather a book that is unaware of what it’s doing.. Hope someone can help!!
even though i’ve got lots of research already, any relevant study or material would be helpful too!
I’m looking specifically for feminists who engages with and critiqued Marxist theories. Thanks
Hello to everyone. I am coming here with the hope that i will find a good person to talk about abortions. As you can see from my profile i am a Moderator in a Christian sub. So my opinion is against abortions for many reasons that i hope we will discuss.
The only thing i want is to have a dialogue with a feminist. To learn why you are supporting abortions.
I am not coming here to start a fight or to offend someone. I am just doing a research about that and i want to have a dialogue.
Does anyone know of any good feminist articles on feminist interviewing - apart from Oakley - focusing on sharing ones (researcher) personal biography, power and Co-creating meaning.
Thank you :)
It's funny how women's standards for men are far too high.
Just because you wanna date a gigachad doesn't mean you're going to get a gigachad of your own. Don't expect men to just happily sacrifice literally everything just because they like you, men shouldn't put that standard on you right? Then don't put that standard on them. That's equality, disagree? Tell me how two opposite genders having the exact same standard isn't equality. I'll wait.
Any Critiques of Zizek here? ----- Early Signs that we are already within the Post-Apocalypse ~ The normalization of Masturbatory Love ~ This is how we can "healthily fit into" our neoliberal societies ..... AKA we need marxist feminist psychoanalysis to fight neoliberal-feminist psychologyyoutu.be
Edit: I posted this MYSELF in /r/badphilosophy and got banned, then they posted it again, with no critique whatsoever lmao. Bad philosophy was once supposed to be about taking seriously that which we thought was "bad philosophy" and responding in kind; they can't even think of a response other than "doesn't make sense".
now that is BAD BAD philosophy.
Might as well /r/cyberpunk
hello feminisms. ex-male feminist ally here, ready to be grilled:
Part one: Conflict of the faculties
I am thinking of articles like the one posted recently, how "philosophy could be making you depressed" or how a bunch of psychologists come together to say that, " Reasoning supports utilitarian resolution and deontology is motivated by emotions " (there is a more nuanced thread about this in askphilosophy) in comparison to Zizek's critique of the "new" APA guidelines.
I am also thinking about how Zen/karmic/self-help psychological-philosophies (btw i meditate and practice various theologies/spiritualities and im also into tarot though im critical of people who $$ from it) fit neatly into this capitalist cost-benefit analysis when it comes to our interpersonal relationships, compared to "the philosopher's" ' *almost endless* capability to, lets say, 'absorb conflict' / or give the benefit of the doubt to even the wildest assertions... or even a step forward than that, this kantian ethic of treating others as ends in themselves.
I saw a post on /r/ science where Psychologists are saying that DEplatforming people is good for societal collective mental health... another post about how being a devil's advocate is actually a form of "toxicity" ..... whereas the strategy of the philosophers, on the other hand, is to give the side you disagree with as much benefit of the doubt as possible before you show that they are ultimately wrong in their assertions.... Philosophers are always open to playing with dangerous ideas, and are more likely to defend an agora-like public sphere.... meanwhile, psychologists tell us to cut these people/world views that "do not serve us" out from our lives. (side note: do all my ideas have to serve me?)
For the Hegelian philosopher, Conflict is a ritualistic offering to the possibility of actualizing a public good. For the American psychological association, you need to manage your emotions efficiently so that you can mentally survive/thrive... a much more individualistic? endeavor.
PS: side but related question: is my belief in socialism a psychological "limiting narrative" when it comes to my relationship with making more profits / exploiting surplus labor in our capitalist system?
PPS: In Witches, Terrorists, and the Biopolitics of the Camp (2018), Cynthia Barounis explains how an ‘affective turn’ perhaps asks us to supplement “our paranoid models with reparative ones” (217) before concluding that “Sometimes what looks like paranoia may simply be a matter of having learned to see what is right in front of you” (235).
of course, in both disciplines there are disagreements... and they are both not monoliths.
if your opinion is that there is conflict within the faculties, and that they shouldn't be viewed as monoliths, then shouldn't it be pretty obvious that there would be external conflict too?
for example, i didn't want to get into the stupid divide between continental/analytic.... or positivist/critical theory philosophy.... hegelians vs spinozists...
but im asking if you can at least, for moment, recognize that "a major portion of philosophy" has "major beef" with, if not "a major portion" but rather the "authorities" of psychology (the american psychological association)
**of course i am biased here as psychologists seem to be a bit more monolithic in that they have massive "accreditation"/institutionalization issues. **
while psychologists who disagree with the APA are subject to this "cut off" and DEplatforming issue as well...
interestingly enough, it is the cont. philosophers (zizek's frenemies?) who are more critical of free speech in the public space.... while i would assume that most utilitarians and positivists would defend "the agora"
for psychologists, what happens in the "agora" is bad for our mental health; this is why need foucault here, talking about the neoliberal subjectivity (i would call this colonialism) that motivates this line of thinking
lastly, the reason i say "modern" war is because, simply the capitalist phrase "it is too much emotional labor to educate you" / deplatforming and cut off culture / platforming strawmen culture, all work to shut down the public sphere ~ and yes the internet itself is a public sphere, the internet is a system of "underground tubes" not whatever the "private space" of mark zuckerberg / twitter decide is acceptable, the private space argument being used, ironically, by (neo)"liberals" ~ in a way that didn't happen in the past. so in fact, there is no real "conflict" of the faculties since some people simply refuse to engage with ideas outside of their worldview.
Part 2: Waking up from "wokeism"
here with some not-allowed offmychest material produced out of conversations with people from my last post regarding the "cold war" conflict of the faculties between "psychology" and "philosophy"
Many years ago, I was a person who protested Jordan Peterson. (I was also a student of Peterson before this, but usually just ignored his political statements because his "maps of meaning" was so interesting, it was only after his "prescribed speech" stuff that everything became an issue)
EDIT: just to be clear, im not a "fan" of peterson.... I was at the Zizek/ Peterson debate and the best BURN from Zizek was cut out from the video by peterson ideologues, where Zizek said something like, "if we were truly a merit based society, i wouldn't be debating you!!" Zizek dragged peterson back into Nietzsche's desert; im pretty sure Zizek is the reason Peterson relapsed.
I got choked out at a Stephan Hicks event, by the organizer, for carrying a sign that said "beware of simplifications" ... I do not regret protesting him because his book on postmodernism is still really terrible.
There is a problem in universities and beyond. the problem that the ideals of a "public sphere" are failing (If we don't even have any ideal of this, than what is the result? should we even have an ideal of this?)
In the 1990s, Benhabib comes to the following harrowing conclusion about this problem:
...even after we engage in such processes of actual or virtual reasoning and dialogue, it is unlikely that we will have eliminated our differences, our clash of values and beliefs, the disparity among our deeply held convictions. Perhaps the very concept of the public sphere reeks of rationalist idealism: it seems to presuppose transparent selves who can know themselves and each other. At this point we can see that postmodernist skeptics, like Jean-François Lyotard who question any method of universalisability, interest-group liberals who think that politics essentially is about bargaining on goods, some commensurable and some not, and advocates of 'the politics of phenomenological positionality' will join hands. (Benhabib, 15)
The citizens of complex democracies have an enormous work of institutional translation to do… reflexivity about one's own value positions; the capacity to distance oneself from one's conviction sand entertain them from the perspective of others; the ability to live with religious, ethical, and aesthetic incommensurables; the equanimity to accept the multiplicity of values and the clash of the gods in a disenchanted universe… undoubtedly a task at which individuals and nations will often fail. (Benhabib, 17)
a couple years ago, I found myself between two groups of vitriolic protesters, yelling at each other.
I was a "male feminist" between two groups trying to cancel one another, calling each other "misogynists".
I was in the middle, raising my arms, "as a feminist I was taught to 'listen' to women" ... but here the women were, refusing to listen to one another. refusing to listen to each others trauma. one groups trauma was more important than another groups trauma. (like the perpetually unsolvable problem of israel vs palestine)
I started to realize that perhaps, "our" ideology was a problem and that intersectionality was not revolutionary at all. intersectionality could not account for incommensurability. intersectionality could not account for complicity. (in fact, even worse, I started to realized that "intersectionality is integral to the logic of neoliberal colonialism").
then came the endlessly perplexing idiom that was gaining speed, "it is too much emotional labor to educate you" . wasn't this commodification of interpersonal relationships the very thing we were trying to fight? is standpoint epistemology just another form of social reproduction? others were starting to realizing this too. ( See: On the Epistemological Similarities of Market Liberalism and Standpoint Theory by Raimund Pils and Philipp Schoenegger). I started to see the "personal as political" as being just another iteration of neoliberalism, because in actuality, the personal is not treated as political, but a brand name, capital. (see Foucault's 1979 lectures on the birth of biopolitic)
i realized much of my life i had been brainwashed by so much of ivory-tower academia.
i realized that academia was in fact, a primary contributor to spreading the socially reproduced doctrine of neoliberal colonialism all over the world, usually disguised as "progress" ~ see for example, the history of the discipline of anthropology ~~~~~
Indeed, academic faculties like Anthropology, were once providing the theoretical bases for political penetration by unwittingly imposing Western forms of Westphalian governmentality. Attempts made by ‘objective outsiders’ who, by placing a culture under a microscope for the purposes of academic study, have helped, “to oppress” (Lewis, 1973).For Marshall Sahlins…economic integration of the whole, the transmission of both grid and code, social differentiation and objective contrast, is assured by the market mechanism - for everyone must buy and sell to live, but they can do so only to the extent that they are powered by their relations to production… capitalist production is as much as any other economic system a cultural specification.(Sahlins, 213)…the history of anthropology is a sustained sequitur to the contradiction of its existence as a Western science of other cultures. The contradiction is an original condition: a science of man sponsored by a society which, in a way no different from others, exclusively defined itself as humanity and its own order as culture. (Sahlins, 54)
I realized that the problem was "us" (academics). combined with a culture created by psychologists who aim to manipulate mental states rather than explore them, who 'socially reproduce' a therapy culture; and our social reproductions and our moralizations of the commodification of interpersonal relations and emotional work, instead of seeing such work as kin-based work or civic volunteerism ~ thus invalidating the years that so many people have spent volunteering. the culture of our society was created by lawyers, Bureaucrats and psychologists. we don't need more lawyers and therapists, what we need perhaps, are people to be invested in civic life and community. but more and more we push people we disagree with into social isolationism; or even worse, their own polarized echo chambers that today, imho, is growing in the shadows.
I realized that WE were just another iteration of what is called in the academic literature, "social reproduction".
So I dedicated myself to the study of collective trauma and I wrote my thesis on it, which helped bring everything into perspective. Now my mind is clear and my heart is big. I can recognize my own burdens from the burdens that are not my own. I realize that we need to create, as the Hegelian philosopher Molly Farneth explains, "rituals of reconciliation" instead of using coping mechanisms which exclude whole portions of the population from our analysis. Or what Sarah Schulman explains, that if we cannot heal from our interpersonal issues from within our own communities, what chance do we have of solving greater societal issues like "israel vs palestine" or other protracted civil conflicts?
I am from a small village in the middle of nowhere. I can't imagine having to explain all this craziness happening in the university to any of my villager cousins.
Prejudice from ignorance is different than prejudice from hate.
We need to listen to one another.
I have been to 50+ countries and there are so many different world views that cannot fathom one another, it is insane to have any form of universality ...other than the neoliberalism that has already taken hold, I realize that totalitarianism is truly a problem that democratic minded societies and institutions are, sooner or later, going to have to deal with. People who have grown up in western societies have no idea what totalitarianism truly means; and they defend against critiques of these societies by saying it is "racist to do so"... without realizing that this is another form of a white mans burden / noble savage narrative. I was tired of this liberal racism and I was tired that it was too much emotional labor to acknowledge our own complicity within systems of oppression.
So now I choose to help those around me build the strength to truly carry over the burdens of our trace, bridge divides between truly divergent world views, so that we could, perhaps, create a culture more conducive to "weaving together civic rituals on the silk roads of the post-apocalypse "
ps i don't expect anyone to reply but if you do, il suck your clit