Here’s my thesis: As a result of effective politicking, people called “feminists” gained power in universities with the charge to teach something called “feminism.” But, what is “feminism”? Once they got past the point of treating women equally, they had to create a structure. Otherwise there would be nothing to teach, nothing to publish, nothing to discuss. So, various strains of feminism were created. And, they had to be created quickly.
Since this new “feminism” never needed to be tested against reality or validated, creative crackpots could do whatever they wanted. So, we now have a large, powerful group within academia promoting mostly BS.
The article cited in the other thread points out the contradiction that the major feminist theories pardoxically interfere with opposition to anti-female practices in some Muslim countries. However, that’s really a side-issue.
My real problem is that feminist theory as a whole has been made up out of whole cloth. There is simply no reason to give any credence to feminst theory, and a number of reasons to disbelieve it.
december, as Lamia has said, you’ve really got to define feminist theory before you can move on in this argument.
It’s been a few years, but when I was in a literary criticism class, with a professor who was very much a feminist, one of the schools of literary criticism we discussed was feminism. I don’t have my notes available any more, but the basic gist of it was to look at texts with a mind as to how women are portrayed, treated, characterized, and how the author’s gender may have or may not have had an effect on the text.
I imagine one could also take this and apply it to life in general. Thus I would define feminism as a poorly named paradigm of being gender aware.
What could possibly make that a method that is more invalid than any other one might use to analyse art, literature, politics, or life?
How do you define feminist theory? Cite.
How has your definition of feminist theory shown itself to be pervasive in universities? Cite.
Boy, december you really got a thing about kicking ant mounds, don’t you?
Of course some feminist theorizing is crapola. Some political science is crapola. Goes with the territory. I have personally seen two otherwise intelligent women arguing whether another woman should be allowed to teach in Wm. Studies, seeing as how she wasn’t a lesbian. Lack of committment, you see.
It makes perfect sense to have and to foster a feminist perspective on literature, history, etc. Witness Barbara Tuchman. But a Womens Studies Dept. to me means that the academic men don’t have hair one.
Maybe we should change the name of the Business/Accounting School to the White Studies Dept.
Open the Book of Common Prayer, for starters. Look through it with a yellow highlighter. Note how many terms are describing the three Persons of the Trinity, the clergyman leading the service, and the participants therein in specifically masculine language. (We had a similar exercise in Sunday School this morning, for the obvious reason.)
Take a copy of a given law code. Do likewise. Note how often the person referred to in the law is assumed to be masculine.
Remember the story about the E.R. surgeon who was faced with a horribly injured boy, whose father had been taking him somewhere when they got into a horrible accident where the father was killed and the son critically injured. The surgeon refuses to operate on the boy because “he’s my son.” Contemplate why the solution to this question is startling.
Am I coming close to making anything like a legitimate point?
Who is “they”? Would you mind providing some objective evidence this cabal of “Feminists” exists, and what influence they have? What are the crackpot theories you claim exist, and can you demonstrate them to be crackpot?
I think the problem is that December hasn’t cited any points of theory advanced by feminists that are bogus, or defined some subgroup of feminism that advance bogus philosophies and cited those bogus philosophies.
Just a minor nitpick. In the portion you quoted, “and men” is in parentheses not quotation marks. Actually, given the site, it makes sense. Traditionally, “women” is understood to include only women while “men” is understood to include both, to give the standard arguement for using only or mostly male pronouns in documents. That, coupled with the fact that there is a perception that some forms of feminism are out to exclude men might be the rationale for explicitly including men. When I read what you quoted, I assumed that “(and men)” was to explicitly include men.
Well, Christanity has always held Trinity to be male. Jesus was a man, if a group believe God to be man, why do feminist groups want to change their beliefs. As to your second point, about the masculine language used to indicate persons of both sexes, well blame that on the fact English doesn’t have a gender-neutral third person pronoun. I really wish someone would come up with a gender-neutral word for this that would stick, as it would be useful.
Quite a few people see that story, and their first thought is that it is contradictory – the boy’s father is dead, so how can the ER surgeon say “he’s my son”? Usually it eventually comes to them that the ER surgeon is the boy’s mother. The fact that this explanation is not immediately apparent to most people is troubling.
