The Niftiest Bear
Junior Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 71
Gender: 
|
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 11 th, 2015 at 5:12pm: The Niftiest Bear wrote on Jun 11 th, 2015 at 4:49pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 11 th, 2015 at 4:25pm: The Niftiest Bear wrote on Jun 11 th, 2015 at 3:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 11 th, 2015 at 5:12am: The Niftiest Bear wrote on Jun 6 th, 2015 at 3:56am: She's a very interesting person.
I've been studying feminist political theory lately, and recently discovered anarcha-feminism. Women like Emma Goldman and Voltairine De Cleyre are so fascinating, and not talked about save for specialised women's studies topics. I also find it interesting that men like Foucault are discussed at large for their contributions to feminism, but the women are largely forgotten.
I have a sneaky suspicion I know what might be behind this.
(Hint!! It begins with "P" and ends with "atriarchy"!) Foucault is discussed at length because he's a post-structuralist, just as the feminists of the second and third wave are. What's your point exactly? I said that Foucault is discussed more often than feminists in the same discipline. What does him being post-structuralist have to do with anything? And, more to the point, why is he discussed when other post-structuralist women and feminists are not? Why does he get to have his name everywhere, when second and third wave feminists (gosh I hate the whole "wave" thing, feminism isn't like the ocean -- -waves recede and return, feminism has never done that; once it came, it stayed) are lumped into the same basket? Why is Philipa Rothfield's name not common knowledge in universities? Jana Sawecki? Betty Friedan? Why is it that the only time women are ever mentioned in sociology is the token woman centred lecture? I have read and heard more on Engels, Durkheim, Marx, etc. enough to last a life time -- where are the women in academia? Why are they swept under the rug when their contributions are just as important, if not more so because they have further and deeper knowledge on matters these old dead white men could never understand? They're probably not mentioned as often as those men you stated because they offer nothing original. Marx, Durkheim, and to a lesser extent, Foucault, were the originators of certain perspectives, or thereabouts. Second and third wave feminists offer nothing that hadn't been said a few thousand times already. Most feminists are carbon copies of Marx's class conflict converted to gender/sex conflict - the same theory of "oppression" is used, but has simply replaced bourgeois with men, proletariat with women, and class with gender/sex. The sociological examination of 'power structures' feminists are obsessed with was popularised by Foucault, but can be traced back to Nietzsche. Was anything written by feminists around the time of Marx, Durkheim, and Nietzsche that rivals what they had to say? By that logic then anything written by any man since Marx should also be ignored -- if he is the be all and end all of sociological theory. You're presenting a straw man argument, you cannot claim that all of feminism rests on Marx. Feminism existed long before him, if not in name then in theory --women have been agitating for change since the dawn of oppression. Besides, even if that is the case what's your point? Pretty sure that's how all theories go; someone says something, someone else sees potential so they change it and expand on it. If anything the fact that these feminists are taking Marx's ideas further than he did should show that that he was limited in his views. And then there's the theory that has nothing to do with him at all! More reason that women in philosophy/sociology/theoretical scholars in general should be listened to and taught about. By the way --- if second and third wave (ugh, that word again) feminists are saying these things that have been said a thousand times before ---- maybe there's some legitimacy to it? Maybe we know what we're talking about? Just because nothing is easily accessible does not mean it was not written/thought. It's like why JK Rowling write under initials; she believed that no one would buy her books if they knew she was female. Anonymous was a woman. I'll take that as an admission there were no feminist writers that had anything interesting or innovative to say before Marx, Durheim, and Nietzsche. You claim women have been fighting since the dawn of oppression so it shouldn't have been too hard to give some examples. When does the "dawn of oppression" begin, by the way? How is me not spoon feeding you information an admission of anything? Gosh you're smug. And not even with any reason to be. I have succeeded and admitted nothing --- if you really want to know then you'll find it for yourself, trying to goad me into doing it for you so you can cherry pick words/sentences and take them out of context in an effort to "disprove" me is a waste of my time. You're on the internet, google is right there. Or google scholar if you're feeling brave. But hey, if you're so eager for this information I'll set up a paypal account and you can pay me for my time. Right around the time of patriarchal religion I'd say.
|
Forum
Pages: 
Womens Biggest Issues Are ... (Read 79620 times)
