What distinguishes each form of feminism from the other?
This isn’t quite the same as asking how different forms of feminism are defined. Many feminisms, for instance, rightly include questioning gender roles as part of their definition; but because this is true of most forms of feminism, it doesn’t help much when trying to tell the difference between (for example) liberal feminism and socialist feminism.
Disclaimer: My purpose here isn’t to “define” feminism, or to tell people what this or that feminism is as if I were an authority. On the contrary, I’m assuming that people will disagree with me and feel free to tell me where I’m wrong.
Socialist feminism is the form of feminism with which I most identify (this week, at least). Socialist feminism is distinguished from all other feminisms (except Marxist feminism) by its emphasis on material and economic inequality. Socialist feminists, like other socialists, look at culture as a whole and ask, “who controls the resources?” and “which institutions are keeping those people in control of the resources?” But unlike non-feminist socialists, socfems answer those questions by talking not only about class but also about patriarchy.
In her Dictionary of Feminist Theory, Maggie Hume says “Unlike radical feminism, socialist feminists refuse to treat economic oppression as secondary; unlike Marxist feminists they refuse to treat sexist oppression as secondary.”
Marxist feminism, unsurprisingly, shares a lot of ground with socialist feminism. Marxfems, however, tend to see class oppression – “the ongoing battle over who does the producing and who reaps the rewards of production” – as the “root” oppression on which all other oppressions are modeled. Sexist oppression is a form of class oppression. Marxfems have thus done a lot of useful analysis on how production is gendered, and how women’s larger share of domestic labor means that women do more producing while getting fewer rewards.
Marxist feminists, like radical feminists (and unlike socfems), tend to be skeptical about the chances of achieving substantive change by working within “the system.”
Radical feminism is distinguished, first of all, by the belief that male supremacy is the root or model for all other oppressions. While most radical feminists would not argue that (for example) racist oppression is necessarily less harmful to its victims than sexist oppression, they would argue that fighting male supremacy is necessary to get at the root of both problems. So while fighting racism doesn’t necessarily do anything to fight male supremacy, fighting male supremacy does, by definition, help to reduce racist oppression.
Radfems are also distinguished by their emphasis on sexual violence and exploitation as the lynchpin of male supremacy. While other feminists care about sexual violence and exploitation, of course, no other feminism makes SVAX as central a point in its analysis of patriarchy. This had led radfems to help women in many concrete ways: rape victim services, battered women’s shelters, sexual harassment laws, and so on.
Radfems are skeptical of the long-term viability of seeking change within the system, but that hasn’t prevented them from working within the system, as in the case of sexual harassment laws, or from trying to work within the system, as in the case of the MacKinnon/Dworkin antipornography ordinance. Arguably, radfems see working in the system less as a route for seeking social reform than as band-aid measures; laws against stalking or sexual harassment are needed because they provide some protection to women, but laws can’t really do much to fight male supremacy in the long run.
Finally, radfems are generally more skeptical about men’s ability to be feminists than other feminists are; in this view, supportive men should therefore be called something else, like “pro-feminist men.”
Liberal feminism is politically more individualist than other forms of feminism (except for libertarian feminism); from a liberal feminist point of view, the primary purpose of feminism is to create a world in which people are judged for their individual characteristics without regard to sex. Liberal feminists do tend to work through the system more than radfems or marxfems; liberal feminists believe that many social problems can be meaningfully addressed through the government, which will gradually bring about social change. Hence, libfems are the most likely feminists to form groups like NOW and the Feminist Majority, groups which try to advance a wide range of feminist issues through legislative and lawsuit strategies.
While libfems agree with radfems that sexual violence and exploitation are serious problems, libfems are less likely to put SVAX at the center of their analysis of patriarchy. Instead, libfems point to barriers of prejudice and discrimination keeping women from taking an equal place in the power structures of society. Some libfems see strong connections between male dominance and other oppressions; such as racism and classism; other libfems believe that these issues can be seen separately, and feminism is stronger when it focuses on issues of sexism.
Liberal feminism is distinguished from libertarian feminism (aka individualist feminism) by its belief in government solutions for social problems; it is, for example, rare to find a liberal feminist who does not support welfare policies to help the poor.
* * *
I think that’s enough from me, for now. I’m hoping that people will contribute distinguishing traits of other sorts of feminism as well: obviously there are lots of feminisms I didn’t mention, plus I’m sure many people will disagree with how I distinguished the four I did mention. I’d be especially eager to see if someone could explain what distinguishes third wave feminism from other kinds of feminism, as I’ve always felt deficient in understanding what that was about.
I mostly identify myself as a liberal feminist who teeters on being radical sometimes, depending on a particular issue, such as sexual violence against women and girls, and patriarchy’s role in institutionalizing racism.
I’m not sure what I’d name “my feminism.” I’d be closest to libertarian feminism, I guess, but all the self-described “libertarian feminists” I’ve seen struck me more as social conservatives using the language of rights and freedoms to justify their own biases. Sociocultural feminism, perhaps?
I’m much more focused on the cultural aspects of sexism and gender roles, and how the organization of systems in society can serve to oppress people whether or not the individuals who make up society intend to. I don’t really ask the socialist feminism questio of “who controls the resources?” so much as “how does this allocation of resources support or oppress a given group?” I think Marxist and radical feminisms focus on their particular demons to a degree that obscures system failures, and that liberal feminism can put too much faith in the ability of government to fully address deep-seated injustices.
I’m a liberal feminist, edging toward socialist. While theory isn’t my strong point, the way I’ve heard people use “Third-Wave” is to mean accepting of femme-ness, and not man-hating. While I’m all for not man-hating, as many of you guys are lovely, the idea that a particular type of feminism needs to identify itself as non-man-hating because, presumably, all other other types of feminism are (a premise which I don’t accept), irritates me, so I don’t use “Third-Wave”.
(This is not intended to attack anyone who considers themselves a Third-Wave feminist — I may simply have been associating with annoying people who misuse the term.)
I’m a… a whatchamacallit. A thingie.
A post-third-wave neoclassical liberal anti-anti-feminist anarcho-existentialist?
An agnostic-leaning-atheist vegetarian socio-cultural femi-fascist? (that’s a bit like a femi-nazi, but not quite as bad for right-wingers)
(Note: I know there are real differences in the schools of thought Amp describes. I just thought I’d make fun of abstruse labelling a bit, for the heck of it.)
Where would ecofeminism fit in this typology? My initial reaction is to think of it as a subset of radical feminism, since it sees environmental destruction as an outgrowth of patriarchy. But some strands of ecofeminism have an essentialist theme (women are inherently more nurturing and closer to nature) that doesn’t seem to fit with radical feminism as described in the post.
I’m a… a whatchamacallit. A thingie.
A post-third-wave neoclassical liberal anti-anti-feminist anarcho-existentialist?
An agnostic-leaning-atheist vegetarian socio-cultural femi-fascist? (that’s a bit like a femi-nazi, but not quite as bad for right-wingers)
(Note: I know there are real differences in the schools of thought Amp describes. I just thought I’d make fun of abstruse labelling a bit, for the heck of it.)
____________________________________________________________
so Amp, why is this type of “humor” acceptable?
Why is Julian’s overt hatred of women/feminism permissable?
let me clarify my questions: you say you like the differences of opinions represented on your blog. This however is a blatent ridiculing of feminist politics/theory. That is not a difference of opinion, but an old-school boys tactic in discrediting the legitimacy of women’s thoughts.
Q Grrl:
Why are you saying I find it “acceptable”?
It seems to me that you’re defining “acceptable” as meaning “any post that Barry doesn’t ban, respond to, or delete.” However, maybe I’m mistaken that’s what you mean, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify before I respond any further.
Er, that seems overboard — Julian’s comments were frivolous, but not obviously hostile. (Note that I can see how they would be hostile in a context where they were likely to be successful in turning the conversation away from feminism and women’s issues, but this does not appear to be such a context.)
uh, yeah. I might be jumping the gun.
Just that I’ve seen this behavior from this poster for the past several days.
I’m sorry that you are taking it as a personal indictment, but in a way it got your attention far more than if I had said:
“Julian, I find this behavior unacceptable, please stop.”
___________________________________________________
I mean, in a way I feel I have nothing to lose. I’m tired of men’s cheap shots. I’m tired of space existing that purports to be welcoming, and is for the most part, but in which I feel my criticism is going to read as a personal attack. Yeah, I’m hear by my own choice. But it isn’t my choice to be a woman or to deal with sexist shit. I’m still amazed that you are taking this all personally Amp, when I think I’ve tried to be clear that this is about how men treat women as a whole.
I wouldn’t be here if I thought you were as bad as you think I think you are!
I don’t think feminism as a whole is silly: it is an essential part of human liberty. Of course, individual feminists are entitled to be every bit as silly or serious as anyone else, when the mood strikes them. I do think we’ve all, though, read the occassional book review with some proposed abstruse school of some way of thinking (e.g. a school of feminism, a school of economics, a school of political thought) that was kinda silly.
I don’t think that my joke is actually very applicable to Amp’s original four. It’s a short and meanngful list. Distinguishing between liberal, radical, socialist, and Marxist feminism is reasonable. We can get into finer distinctions (radical lesbian feminism, eco-feminism, Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, second wave feminism, third wave feminism). I don’t mean to denigrate the creators of these distinctions within feminism, but I think all of us find a point at which we’ll say, “now that’s just silly.” Naturally, other disciplines have their own similar phenomena. (in macroeconomics, it might be reasonable to distinguish between Keynesian, rational-expectations, and socialist views. It begins to feel a bit excessive when we get into tiny schools with few adherents: real business cycle theory (even though that’s kinda what I’m learning now), Marxist business cycle , Austrian theory (or were they just the predecessors of real business cycle theory?), etc).
Actually, on thinking a bit about it, I think that what I said was kind of offensive, because only five schools had been mentioned (radical, socialist, liberal, Marxist, and eco-feminist) by that point in the thread, and by posting my absurd distinctions, I acted as if the already-listed feminisms had gotten into the territory of absurdity, which they had not. (perhaps if I had posted later in the thread, when the thread was more firmly established, less easily derailed, and there were actually more postings of silly feminisms, then I would have beeen more justified)
I apologize, and hope that I have not permenantly derailed this thread.
Now, in the hopes that we can get back on topic, some other schools of feminism that might be worth considering:
-libertarian feminism (as Jeff mentioned, however, this is sometimes a cover for anti-feminism. I don’t think that we should exclude the of real ones, though)
-Radical lesbian feminsim (I think we’ll hear more about this from Heart later on :^)
-existentialist feminism (If I understood correctly from reading Mouse Words, Simone de Beauvoir fell into this category. I need to read her: I sure as hell hope I haven’t spent $17 on something that’s going to stay on my shelves for nothing).
Also, a thought: should movements like punk riot grrrls be considered a “school” of feminism, or a “feminist movement?” Or are these things one and the same?
I hope I’m not spamming by this point, but on the topic of third-wave feminism, I think (though I’m not an expert) the distinguishing feature of third-wavers is not so much that they’re “pro-sex” but that they believe sex has no special moral or political status at all.
A utilitarian third waver might generally be inclined to say “sex is good,” but that isn’t a profound moral or political statement: it’s just that people often find sex fun, just as they find many activites (like movies, eating good food, etc) fun, and fun is good. Similarly, on a matter like prostitution, a third-waver’s response is not to ask about the morality of trading money for sex, but to ask things like, “what are her working conditions? How do those working conditions compare to her other oppurtunities?”
I’m not sure I’d hold Lindsay Beyerstein up as an example of third wave feminism (I haven’t heard her say that she is or isn’t), but I think that she states the “sex has no special moral value” view much better than I could in her response to David Brooks and Tom Wolfe. I think Martha Nussbaum in Sex and Social Justice is also sometimes considered a third-waver. (Note: I understand her views from a debate I heard her participate in, not from reading her work)
Another thought: utilitarian feminism, a la J. S. Mill and even Jeremy Bentham? Or is that just liberal feminism in Mill’s case and non-feminist utilitarianism in the case of Bentham?
I’m a liberal-socialist feminist, I guess. But I’m not sure that that label conveys much actual information about my views – at least, not the kind of information that would be useful to this audience, where borderline socialism and feminism are both commonly held views.
I’ve always heard the third wave / second wave distinction used primarily for generational differences – a way to describe how my mother got shit just for reading Germaine Greer, while I only get shit when I agree with her too vehemently – and secondarily for differences in how we see connections between patriarchy and sexuality, particularly commodified sexuality in advertising or prostitution. I hear “third wave” and “sex positive” used (rather annoyingly) as near-synonyms for feminists who view these things as symptomatic of underlying oppression but not necessarily problematic on their own.
Existential feminism never developed into a movement, though the language of existentialism –the notion of “the other”– has found its way into feminist analysis.
Another school I remember is cultural feminism, though it wasn’t “political” so much as an emphasis on “healing” in a sort of new age way, developing music festivals, music, “womyn’s culture.” Of course, more political feminists tended to be a little leary of this sometimes as more therapeutic than social change oriented.
I don’t think all marxian feminists subsumed sexism or gender oppression under the rubric of class oppression. Back when there was really a viable marxian feminist debate (1970s, 1980s) , there was a lot of disagreement on this. Anybody remember Sheila Rowbotham (I hope I spelled this right)?
“They’re not “hostile”? ““ in fact, they’re downright “civil.”? But they are dismissive and degrading as hell. Which is damn typical of men’s “civil”? conversations.”
Damn, how many times have I encountered that when discussing politics and social issues with non-feminist/anti-feminist men in real life settings and even in cyberspace? Um…uh…, oh that’s right, I lost count. Well said, Bean.
I guess, I can call myself a sociocultural feminist as well, because I am interested and even very critical of how culture and society treats women and girls in the way of repressive expectations, portrayals, and institutions relating to culture, especially “pop-culture“. You know, such expectations as, “looking pretty and sexy like Paris Hilton, be a super-mom, be like Oprah, obsess about getting an engagement ring, do whatever Cosmo Magazine tells you to do, and have children right after marriage,” etc.
And I am a proud member of the Third Wave, however, I observe and respect the very significant contributions of the Second Wavers, and the Second Wavers themselves. They’re veterans and some have the prestige of retired army generals in my humble, personal opinion. There is no “better wave” of feminism.
Like Jeff, I’m closest to Libertarian feminism. This is what the official Association of Libertarian Feminists (ALF) says:
The Purpose of ALF is to:
* encourage women to become economically self-sufficient and psychologically independent
* publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential
* oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government on account of sex
* work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals
* provide a libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women’s movement that tend to discourage independence and individuality
http://www.alf.org/
Oh, and I am also anti-pop culture, like Pseudo-Adrienne!
Funny, we are both in the third-wave age group. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Other generations have been raised with what I call ‘princess culture’. But ours is really the most advanced (I mean… regressive) in that particular area. It has gotten to the point now where even very young girls are feeling this pressure and some are revolting against it.
Q Grrl, old patterns are definitely hard to break especially when people won’t break them because they either don’t think they’re a problem(b/c they benefit from them), or they just don’t want to(because they benefit with them).
I’m a reluctant feminist because I believe in women’s rights and liberation but have issues with the movements inclusiveness of women. But you know what, with men like Julian out there, women’s rights is still most definitely an issue to fight for, because if “pro-feminst” men’s blogs have some of the issues I’ve seen in my week or so here, that’s pretty discouraging, not that it’s been all that way, because there’s been interesting discussion in the midst of it.
Yeah, if someone’s silent, one might think they might approve of a comment or certainly not object to it, yet a woman does and she’s made to feel like she did something wrong. Very familiar. *shrug*
“Reluctant” feminist, eh ? As terminology, that’s sounding better and better. But perhaps I should stick to “malcontent feminist” or “apostate feminist” for the time being.
NOTA knows, every time I get stuck listening to Air America in my partner’s car or have to read more Panglossian babble about what a favor Hillary’s latest abortion spiel is doing us all, I want to print up a shirt that says “This Is What An Apostate Feminist Looks Like” on the front. On the back, I want an elephant and a donkey with a big line drawn through them. And I want the Ms. Foundation to sue my ass, so I can get some PR. Anonymity is so damn tedious, don’t you know…
Existentalist feminism fits nicely under the broader category of socialist and liberal feminism and influenced by Marxism. Labor in the home and for others beyond herself is what keeps Woman from transcending, wouldn’t you know?
You’re going to make me respond with a post on Christian feminism again, aren’t you, Amp? Great stuff.
I saw a version of this once and loved it enough to adopt it (modified) as my own.
First I was a liberal, then I was a liberal feminist, then I was a pro-sex feminist, then I was a radical feminist.
I look forward to what’s beyond radical feminism, and I’m thinking it may be eco-feminism since the more I read about that (Carol J. Adams should be required feminist reading nowadays) the more I’m moving in that Big Picture direction.
The way I see it, radical feminism is more about larger, overarching theories about gender and power than the day to day minutia, which makes it both appropriate and ironic that radical feminists were the main agitators for women’s shelters and sexual harassment laws. The Big Picture changes slowly, but if no one pushed the envelope of possibility we’d still live in a country where male bosses saying , “suck me or you’re fired” is unfortunate and terrible but not actually a criminalized form of extortion.
there’s also anarcha-feminism, a closely related but not-identical sister of socialist feminism…
Interesting you should bring this up. I have never been able to figure out what kind of feminist I am, other than an angry one. I have worked for years as a liberal feminist, but I may really be a radical feminist or an ecofeminist. My confusion over the convergence of personal responsibility, cultural opportunity, and the human torture and abasement of non-human creatures leaves me in a fog.
My solution has been not to define my feminism, which I see as a part of my general head-banging over a cruel and ignorant humanity.
Can you speak some more about anarcha-feminism, jam? (or anyone)
Q Grrl,
I’m having a hard time finding the objectionable posts from Julian; I’ve been doing a text find on the comments on the posts on Amp’s front page.
I’m a Marxist, and that sounded like a reasonably good description of the Marxist position on sexism to me. I suppose I’d add that the key to ending the class system is achieving class consciousness in the working class — that is, achieving large-scale organizations of workers that consciously seek to take power. To achieve that unity, the working class must become a force opposed to all forms of oppression, as one of the purposes of oppression is precisely to prevent a united opposition to the ruling class.
Different forms of oppression have their own internal logic. But none of them would be as powerful as they are if the ruling class didn’t, intentionally, reinforce them.
Sexism is unlike most other forms of oppression, in that it goes back to the beginning of class societies, although it took on a particular modern pattern when wage labor became prevalent. Racism, for one counterexample, didn’t exist as a form of systematic oppression until the rise of capitalism.
Am I the only person who objects to the term third-wave feminist? I think it’s the fact that I’m a historian, but to quote Dale Spender quoting someone else (I want to say Mary someone, but I may be wrong) “there’s always been a woman’s movement this century”. I can understand why people called themselves second-wave feminists in the 1970s, because women’s history had been lost, and they didn’t know of the feminist struggles since winning the vote (I think it’s a pretty rarely used term now anyway). But now that history is freely available and yet people of my generation have the arrogance to ignore it and pretend that they are far more important than anything that happened between 1920 and 1965 (in America).
I have some experience with anarcha-feminists, although I’ve only read a little theory. And to me it seems to be feminism for anarchists. I haven’t noticed much difference between the actions of anarcha-feminists and other feminists, except that anarcha-feminists identify as anarchists.
Although generally I believe that the way people practice feminism – what it is that they do – tends to be much more similar than people who come up with schematic frameworks understand.
You’re not wrong; it was said by Mary Stott.
I’d add that the key to ending the class system is achieving class consciousness in the working class ““ that is, achieving large-scale organizations of workers that consciously seek to take power. To achieve that unity, the working class must become a force opposed to all forms of oppression, as one of the purposes of oppression is precisely to prevent a united opposition to the ruling class.
Since power is automatically oppressive, what – other than the furtherance of the career goals of a relatively small number of people – is the point of creating new power structures in this fashion?
I mean, great, you guys win, and everything, and now you’re in charge of society with your non-oppressive ways. Except that as the new ruling class, you gotta start oppressing people to stop them from uniting in opposition against you.
Why bother?
To prevent this being a digression, let me throw in this: it seems to me that the Marxist analysis is, on some level, fundamentally incompatible with the premise of any egalitarian feminism (which is mostly, though not exclusively, what’s being taxonomized here). The new workers soviet or whatever can be as philosophically non-oppressive as it likes, but in the numerous conflicts between women qua women and workers qua workers, they’re going to side with the workers – and perpetuate the same sexist power hierarchy. It might be less oppressive, since many of the workers are women and thus at least some of their interests are being represented, but still, they’re second class at best.
Most women are working class, and at least half the working class is composed of women. Workers as a new ruling class would be busy dismantling the tools of the old ruling class — sexism and arbitrary gender roles being among those tools. I don’t really see how working class interests and the interests of women would really be counterposed.
Workers as a new ruling class would be busy dismantling the tools of the old ruling class ““ sexism and arbitrary gender roles being among those tools.
And what would they use to maintain power over others, without those tools?
Have they built other tools to use in their place?
I’d like to mention a group of us that is often overlooked – Feminist Witches. We’re also called Dianics, or Goddess Wimmin, and it is a very specific group within the feminist movement. We essentially that the Universe is Female; that evolution is the birth process on a planetary scale; that Gaia is alive and beginning to fight back; that “Herstory” has been actively and violently suppressed along with women’s freedom; that the natural order of society is matriarchy; and we place an emphasis on ecstatic revelation, sexual freedom and reverence for life. Some of the other categories of feminists are openly hostile to us – especially the Liberal fems, who think people won’t take them seriously if they aren’t “normal” i.e. “Judeo-Christian”. We’re an embarrassment, which to my ear says that they are bigots. A lot of my efforts have to do with insisting on space for Women’s Religion in the Women’s Movement.
Well, here’s Wikipedia’s definition:
“Third-wave feminism is a feminist movement that arguably began in the early 1990s. Unlike second-wave feminism, which largely focused on the inclusion of women in traditionally male-dominated areas, third-wave feminism seeks to challenge and expand common definitions of gender and sexuality.
Traits of third-wave feminism include queer theory, women-of-color consciousness, post-colonialism, critical theory, transnationalism, and new feminist theory. In particular, a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is center to third-wave feminism.
A comprehensive example of third-wave feminism is Colonize This!, an anthology of writings by young women discussing issues like gender, racism, nationalism, and queer identity.”
I was taught it incorporated postmodernism, idenity politics, and queer theory, and was used by groups like black or gay women who were marginalised in the first round. Or at least their specific interests were not as widely discussed or noticed.
Unlike second-wave feminism, which largely focused on the inclusion of women in traditionally male-dominated areas, third-wave feminism seeks to challenge and expand common definitions of gender and sexuality.
This may be from Wikipedia, but it’s just plain incorrect. The argument that the second-wave feminism movement largely focused on the inclusion of women in traditionally male-dominated areas is completely unsustainable. That’s the other thing that annoys me about ‘third-wave’ feminism – as well as silencing the history of so many women who have struggled this century, people often use completely inaccurate characitures of second-wave feminism to sustain the difference.
The new workers soviet or whatever can be as philosophically non-oppressive as it likes, but in the numerous conflicts between women qua women and workers qua workers, they’re going to side with the workers – and perpetuate the same sexist power hierarchy.
I’m not a Marxist but this makes no sense to me – the idea that there would be disagreements women qua women and workers qua workers assumes no overlap between these two groups.
But the Marxism debate illustrates to me why I find these sorts of discussion about feminism quite difficult. Apart from Radical feminism every strain of feminism is defined by its association with a theoretical framework that has a separate life from feminism and that was developed by men who often forgot that women existed. The different strands are defined more by their association to these other ideologies, than what they actually say about women.
I believe that the driving force for feminism has to be looking at women’s lives, and then acting on what you see, rather than an ideology. And to be honest I think that’s what most feminists do. So while I am a socialist and a feminist, I’m not a socialist feminist – it’s not a case of the socialist adjective modifying the feminist noun (although it’s possible that I’m a feminist socialist).
I mean, great, you guys win, and everything, and now you’re in charge of society with your non-oppressive ways. Except that as the new ruling class, you gotta start oppressing people to stop them from uniting in opposition against you.
I’m not a Marxist, but I think the theory is that capitalism reduces society to two classes, and the revolution eliminates one of them, so there’s only one class. There’s nobody outside the ruling class to be oppressed by it.
“Most women are working class, and at least half the working class is composed of women. Workers as a new ruling class would be busy dismantling the tools of the old ruling class ““ sexism and arbitrary gender roles being among those tools. I don’t really see how working class interests and the interests of women would really be counterposed. ”
I don’t know socialism and communism enforced gender roles on women as well. Women as breeders of the working class seemed to be important under communism, for example, as under capitalism. The availability of contraception in many formerly communist countries, not withstanding.
Sexism is also enforced consciously or not, inside the home. The division of labor for example, the value of the work of keeping a household and raising children(no financial value if it’s the wife/mother, very little value if it’s another woman hired to do the work). Sexism exists in the practices of most organized religions to varying degrees.
Surprise, surprise, sexism also exists in almost every leftist movement or organization just as it always has. If these organizations ab0lished capitalism, there would still be their own sexism to exorcise and just from what I’ve seen on this blog, well, there’s work to be done and that’s the way it is. I’m not saying that to be harsh but that’s the way it is. Deal with it.
Ditto racism, which also would not disappear if capitalism did, because although someone argued that it is related to capitalism from its orgins, it’s so entrenched like sexism including in political movements and organizations including feminism itself, it aint going anywhere without conscious and very painful rehauling of belief systems sometimes buried so deep you don’t even know they are there or to what extent. And a lot of us just don’t want to do that work.
The only thing dismantling capitalism might eliminate is…classism and you know what, I think even that’s debatable.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but a conversation about the efficacy and intricacies of a Marxist revolution isn’t really on-topic for this thread. Perhaps I’m being hasty in worrying about thread-drift, but it seems that there’s already a conversation brewing about whether or not Marxist feminism (and now tending toward Marxism as a whole) is a viable philosophical and social mechanism.
Maybe I am jumping the gun and policing where I’m not wanted, but I would hate to see this conversation derailed into another conversation about the benefits and draw-backs of Marxist revolution.
That said, I’d like to express my own confusion about the term “third-wave feminism.” I don’t understand how it is that third-wave feminism could have added post-modernism and gender subversion to its toolbox when, by my eyes at least, feminism is by definition a gender-bending, post-modern worldview.
Hugo, could you point me to any previous posts or comments regarding Christian feminism? So many aspects of Christianity seem intrinsically counter to feminist ends that I would be interested in seeing a defition of what a Christian feminist would be.
I’ve seen the term “separationist” used here on this site but haven’t been able to find a definition. Is this a feminist who believes that the yoke of male oppression can only be cast off by the total physical separation of men from women?
I’ll can my comments on the relevance of marxist analysis for now. But as someone who studied critical theory in college, I should point out that critical theory certainly predates the third wave. In fact, it was largely made up of Marxists who were disgusted with the path that so-called marxism was taking in the soviet union, starting way back in the 30s. People like Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas. I remember arguing the relevance of these thinkers to feminism back in the late 70s, so that certainly predates the third wave.
Q wrote: “I’m a reluctant feminist because I believe in women’s rights and liberation but have issues with the movements inclusiveness of women.”
I’d like to second that, please. I’m happy to describe myself as a feminist, but often when I look at any “official” type feminist literature, etc., I usually see a big part of the picture missing.
Alsis wrote: “I want to print up a shirt that says “This Is What An Apostate Feminist Looks Like”? on the front. On the back, I want an elephant and a donkey with a big line drawn through them.”
Oooh, can I have one, too??!? With the political party symbols on the back geographically appropriate, of course.
My intention wasn’t to divert the thread, but I just bristle when people act like if capitalism is gone, then racism, sexism, will disappear. Not so much on this thread, but in general.
I just want to support what radfem and others have said about Marxism not being the answer to “the women problem”.
For most of my adult life, I have been a member of a very active socialist party which has actually been involved in “doing” politics, rather than “talking” politics. (the ANC of SA). We, the women of the Party, found it very necessary to form a Women’s Caucus and a Womens League to ensure that women’s issues were not somehow overlooked when it came to making policy and law. We were pretty successful at that and have good laws on the books and good representation on all levels of power.
The major problem, of course, comes with the sexism which is still rampant among SA males. There is residual racism all over to deal with as well. So, although we may formally have the best legislative position in Africa, trust me – sexism and racism do not need capitalist, fascist laws to flourish.
Stentor –
If I understand Marx correctly, classes only exist in opposition to each other, so after the revolution the number of classes isn’t one, it’s zero – the concept of “class” would have no meaning in such a society.
Ted
Any of the definitions offered by Ampersand is only a starting point, at best, for discussion. Any of these would make a long, long thread in their own right.
The key point I wanted to make about Marxism is that the plan isn’t simply to achieve socialism, and watch sexism wither away; rather, in order to have a socialist revolution, you’d need a working class movement that was actively fighting against sexism, within its own ranks and within the broader society. Sexism is one of the reasons that socialism has not yet been achieved.
Hey FoolishOwl, I have an idea: I have a question on Marxism, and I think a lot of us here want to talk about it, but this isn’t quite the right thread, so since you seem to be one of the interested (on Marx) folks here, maybe you could write a post on “The Melancholy Revolutionary” along the lines of “Marxism Open Thread for Alas readers.” We could discuss it there. Want to host such a thread?
Generally, I agree with radfem. I’m not a socialist, but I do want a more progressively-oriented mixed market economy, I think racism and sexism need to be fought, and I oppose wanton cruelty toward animals. I don’t really think these are fundamentally interlinked (except maybe in a really vague way, like “empathy”). I think I could have been a big animal welfare advocate and a virulent racist, or a far stronger opponent of patriarchy and sexism than I am and an advocate of unfetteredly libertarian capitalism. I think that that might be a an interesting dichotomy itself, “coherentist” vs. “particularist” feminisms. I think socialist feminism strikes me as the most “particularist,” and radical and Marxist feminism as the most “coherentist” (though radfem, whom I presume is a radfem, is arguing against the Marxian type of coherentism), with liberal feminism somewhere in the middle.
Hmmm…but you sure don’t seem to mind using your own completely inaccurate “characitures”? [sic] about a particular branch of feminism that you have obviously little to no knowledge about.
In the post that I was replying there was a flat-out wrong statement about feminism of the 1970s that was supposed to be part of the definition. There was also this statement:
was used by groups like black or gay women who were marginalised in the first round. Or at least their specific interests were not as widely discussed or noticed.
That I think is simplistic and ignores a lot of the what actually happened in the 1970s and treats the movement as if it was monolithic. This is not the first time that I have seen feminists who called themselves third-wave make these kinds of statements, although probably ‘some’ would have been more accurate than many .
I’m surprised that you can draw the conclusion that I know little or nothing about ‘third-wave’ feminism, because I object to the term. Although I should have made it clear in my second post that I connect the problem of the inaccuracies of the history of 1970s feminism – with the idea that this is some kind of new wave. I have never seen anything under the name third-wave that didn’t seem to me to be a continuation of the feminist politics of the 1970s, rather than something seperate. A lot of the ideas and action are good and useful, but the term ‘third-wave’ can only be supported by ignoring the history of the feminist movement (the term second-wave has the same problem – but it’s used much less now, and was coined at a time when women’s history had been hidden and not yet recovered).
Julian, thanks for the suggestion. Please feel free to discuss Marxism in this thread.
Have to say I’m fairly new to the finer points of feminist theory, but because I’m an anarchist I meet lots of anarchafeminists, and I think this is an important category. Emma Goldman is an obvious example, and I think Germaine Greer used to be an anarchist.
To be clear, anarchism in political theory and practise is an analysis of the world in terms of power structures and a critique of top-down heirarchies, so it contains a critique of class*, gender, racism, “representative” democracy, and all other top-down power structures. It also contains ideas about what society could be like, which generally focus on communities and workplaces organising themselves in a directly democratic manner., and ideas for how to get there – from the notorious late-19th century assasinations (a minority activity that got us a bad name :o) ) to community and workplace organising, which is the sort of thing I do.
Naturally this tradition produces people who fight gender oppression, and so anarchafeminism. From my experience (YMMV) anarchafeminists tend to avoid ranking oppressions. Instead there is a critique of institutional structures, such as corporations and states, and a critique of anything that impedes direct democracy within anarchist groups, which includes sexism. Most that I’ve met would advocate the proletariat (I prefer “working class” but want to be clear) to unite against the bosses and politicians, and to defeat gender-based hierarchies within their own organisations. If the men won’t budge they’d of course want the women of the working class to unite to make gains. They also tend to argue for action to reduce sexism in the workplace, legal system etc, but would favour direct action rather than lobbying or symbolic protest.
Anarchists often spend their time building directly democratic infrastructure independent from the state and corporate structure, to “build the new society within the shell of the old”. Anarchists have been (and are) involved in setting up worker’s co-ops, food co-ops, housing co-ops, mutual banks, local currency systems, permaculture farms, and all sorts of other things. In the domain of gender activism this translates into involvement in women’s health projects and other projects that give people more control over their own lives.
I said “they” a lot when referring to anarchafeminists, but it’s definitely the set of theories I have greatest affinity for. I’m still figuring out the details of my own views.
* Another important point: by class here I mean Marxist class and derivatives, analysis of power based on possession of productive capital, not Weberite “lower – middle – upper class” stuff.
These are more relevant distinctions if you enlarge the scope to the whole world, there are different strands of feminism on a national/regional/cultural basis. With much in common, but those differences can be crucial.
Among those definitions, I’m probably more inclined to a mix of Marxist theory and analysis, socialist and liberal political/legislative approaches (“working within the system”, I don’t think it’s hopeless, I think it’s necessary) with an emphasis on civil and personal liberties (rather than economic libertarianism as such).
But in practice, local context, local culture is much more relevant than any definition. I’m physically and culturally closer to the Mediterranean region rather than to the anglo-american world, and I tend to be more interested in areas of interaction, challenge and contradiction between women’s movements, and gay rights movements, and the different local politics, cultures and societies with their own histories and traditions. I don’t think “global feminism” as a definition does real justice to those differences, even though of course common goals matter. But there is always a risk of the global part overshadowing the local, and of universal being equated with anglo-american-centric views of the world, so I’m a bit wary of drawing generalised lines that do not take that into account.
I think that that might be a an interesting dichotomy itself, “coherentist”? vs. “particularist”? feminisms. I think socialist feminism strikes me as the most “particularist,”? and radical and Marxist feminism as the most “coherentist”? (though radfem, whom I presume is a radfem, is arguing against the Marxian type of coherentism), with liberal feminism somewhere in the middle.
Based on Amp’s definition — particularly the line “other libfems believe that these issues can be seen separately, and feminism is stronger when it focuses on issues of sexism,” liberal feminism strikes me as the most “particularist.” Radical and Marxist feminisms would be “coherentist” but they draw the arrow of causality differently.
Samantha said:”Can you speak some more about anarcha-feminism, jam? (or anyone)
well, AnarchoAl there did a good job of describing it – but i wanted to add some resources for anyone interested in pursuing more.
Voltairine de Cleyre was an early anarchafeminist, alongside EmmaG. a recent collection of her work is available from SUNY called Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre
Louise Michel is also worth checking out – here’s a good quote from her:
“The first thing that must change is the relationship between the sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will last as long as the ‘stronger’ half controls, or think its controls, the ‘weaker’ half.”
( that’s from “The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel” – unfortunately out of print )
also, the website Anarcha has good resources… have fun!
lastly, lemme just clear my throat here… ahem! mi mi mi miii!
alright, everyone now:
Oooo……
There are women of many descriptions
In this queer world, as everyone knows.
Some are living in beautiful mansions,
And are wearing the finest of clothes.
There are blue blooded queens and princesses,
Who have charms made of diamonds and pearl;
But the only and thoroughbred lady
Is the Rebel Girl!!!!
yeah!
Julian, I think by “coherentizing” you have in mind something like “totalizing.” Marxism assumes that society is to be understood as a totality — everything is connected to everything else — with economics as the ultimate determinant of social structure. Patriarchy theory seems to be a different totalizing theory. Liberal and (anti-Marxist) socialist accounts of feminism reject the idea of totality, on the assumption that totalizing is intrinsically reductive.
By reductive, I mean taking one complex system that is based upon another, and saying you can reduce it to a special case of the base system. For instance, sociobiology tends to reduce social structures to expressions of biology, thus ignoring a great deal of complexity. In principle, all natural sciences are ultimately based on physics, but biology is best studied as a system, rather than just reduced to physics. You can describe the universe as a totality, ultimately determined by physics, without reducing everything to physics.
Pingback: Prima Impressionis
Just wanted to mention that there’s an article in this month’s Utne Reader about what they call Fourth Wave Feminism which incorporates spirituality. http://Utne.com/
Man, that trackback’s first sentence might has well been, “This is why we don’t teach women to read or write, due to their hysterical hysterics that cause them to hysterically put their hysteria into writing hysteria hysteria hysteria.”
The uterus or the pen–you can’t have both, apparently.
Boy, to think that using a word twice in a paragraph would cause someone to get so hysterical (there I go again). I could just chalk it up to the uterus. I mean, I am dealing with someone who thinks that the State’s unwillingness to recognize same-sex marriages violates the First Amendment’s Establishment or Free Exercise clauses.
But that would be sexist, would it? I guess for some people bigotry only goes one way….
Doh! Take it down a notch. Don’t get all hysterical when someone cracks jokes at you. I mean, it is a hysterical stretch to consider my off-the-hip joking to be hysteria. I mean, true, I am female, but that doesn’t mean I was weeping and carrying on while I made fun of your hysterical writing.
[Cross-posted with Amanda’s considerably shorter and better response. Oh, well.]
I’m failing to follow your logic. Because you’re dealing with someone who thinks that non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the establishment cause, therefore you should chalk it up to the uterus? I can’t even imagine a logical chain that would sensibly link that proposition with that conclusion.
First of all, you seem to be implying that it’s inherently ridiculous for someone to think that it’s a violation of the establishment clause when the State chooses to recognize Evangelical Protestant definitions of marriage but not Reform Judaism’s. However, it’s not clear to me that such an argument is inherently ridiculous; on the face of it, it appears to me to be correct.
Second, why would only someone with a uterus believe that there’s something wrong in saying “our marriage laws will be based on Evangelical Protestant rules, and where Jewish marriages fail to abide by Evangelical Protestant rules they will not be recognized?” If you’ve bothered to learn about this issue at all (and if you haven’t, why are you commenting on it?), you must know that that argument has been made by both women and men.
Third, attributing anything to the uterus, other than pregnancy and birth, is sexist. It’s still sexist even when you use the “but I was only joking, and if you disagree with me that makes you humorless” dodge. The problem here isn’t that I’m humorless; the problem is that you’re not funny.
Fourth, your final paragraph – despite your weasel-worded use of the unspecific “some people” dodge – was clearly a personal attack on Amanda. If you’re not willing to cut that bullshit out, then please don’t post on my website.
(And, just in case you’re wondering: Yes, my decisions are subjective and arbitrary; and yes, I often give feminists more latitude than anti-feminists. Again, if you don’t like the rules of posting here, then by all means don’t.)
Mr. Nephtuli states: I’m far from an expert at what constitutes Feminism these days….
and there you go.
Well, other medical issues besides pregnancy and birth could be attributed to the uterus, like uterine cancer. Of course, generally claiming that being a woman is a cancer risk because of the uterus without taking into account the cancer risk men face from testicular and prostate cancer (for instance) is sexist. I know, I know, that’s nitpicking, and Barry really meant to say, “having a uterus doesn’t make you an emotionally unstable psycho, nor a angel of domestic maternalism, nor anything but a person with a uterus” which is true of course.
Thanks for getting my back, Amp. The past half-week after winning that Koufax has turned into an upsurge of trolls. Not that I have lots of trolls, but I used to have none and now I have this weird stuff going on. Who knew that right wingers paid attention to the Koufax awards?
It’s the high price of fame, Amanda! I certainly hope that you are given expensive gift bags and sometimes get to keep the designer dresses that you wear on the red carpet.
Whoa. OK, this got way out of hand.
First of all, I didn’t really post here. I’m new to the blogosphere, so I thought that trackback is the etiquette, like citations or linking.
I perceived the comment that was directed to me as hostile. Not because Amanda commented on my writing, but because the terms she used (teaching women to read and write) implied that my statements were sexist.
My response was not supposed to be funny, but to show how sexism is wrong. I believed she made a crack against men by stating “The uterus or the pen”“you can’t have both, apparently.” I assumed she misspoke and didn’t intend to imply that women are not capable of writing (which is the real implication of this statement), but rather to imply that men are not capable of writing because I used the word “hysterical” more than once in a paragraph. My response was aimed at showing that someone could make irrational assumptions based on gender based on frivolous reasons, but that it would be wrong to do so. That’s why I ended the comment with the statement “But that would be sexist, would it?” (I intended to write “wouldn’t it.”) I never intended to actually equate irrational positions with women.
Now on the substance of Ampersand’s post.
The State does not recognize any religion’s view of marriage. The definition of marriage in this country has been accepted in the western world since time immemorial. The fact that certain elements of Reform Judaism has decided to move away from that definition does not mean that the state has actively chosen to accept one definition over the other. The state is not choosing any religious definition for that matter.
The standard legal argument against same-sex marriages rests on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment, not on the First Amendment. The Massachusetts Court did not base its decision on this argument. Neither did the NY Supreme Court judge who recently ruled that the NY has to recognize same-sex marriage. I’m working from memory, but I don’t remember the Vermont or Hawaii courts using that argument either.
Again, I just wish to point out that my intention was not to be hostile. I was just responding to a perceived (perhaps misperceived) slight.
God knows there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about the statement that a woman’s angry reaction to being treated with sexism is “hysterical”. Before you lavish that word on a woman for righteous anger, you might want to look up it’s etmology.
Anyway, attacking someone for having the nerve to point out sexism is sexist itself. Period. You wouldn’t expect to defend a bunch of racists being racist without getting called racist yourself, so why should this be any different?
I can’t really remember at what point I said that men can’t write. I do think that sexists who use the word “hysterical” a lot are laughably obvious in their intentions. How paranoid of the monster feminists in your mind do you have to be to think that we mean to turn over all sexism back on men? “Hawthorne called us scribbling women, so I refuse to read another man!” screeches the hysterical feminist, after wiping another man’s blood from her dripping fangs before proceeding to write an outlandish letter to the editor demanding an explanation for why they can’t have sexual parity on the editorial pages. When will the feminists ever stop?
[Again, cross-posted with Amanda; I started writing this hours ago, then got distracted and did other stuff for a while, and by the time I finished up Amanda had already posted.]
I think everyone understood that your first comment here was a trackback. And there’s no etiquette problem with you leaving trackbacks at all (if I didn’t want to recieve trackbacks, I’d set the software to not accept them).
Well, you’re right that Amanda implied your statements were sexist, but unless I’ve badly misinterpreted, you’ve misunderstood the crack you quoted. She wasn’t making a crack against men (why would it be a crack against men to say that you can’t write if you’ve got a uterus?); she was sarcastically summing up how anti-woman your post seemed to her.
Reading you generously, what you may not understand is that dismissing women who disagree with men by labeling them “hysterical” – as you did twice within the space of a very short trackback – has a long and sexist history (including women actually being shoved in institutions and subjected to surgery to treat “hysteria”!). Not unlike calling full-grown black men “boy,” “she’s being hysterical”‘s lengthy history as a way of dismissing and diminishing women has made anyone who reflexivly uses the term to mock female intellectuals and writers seem especially sexist.
* * *
No, it hasn’t been. In fact, the definition of marriage has changed many times “since time immemorial,” and often quite recently.
The definition of marriage in this country excludes polygamy, for example, but there are many examples of polygamous marriage in western history. The current definition of marriage in this country allows wives to have a legal existance apart from their husbands (i.e., wives can own their own property), but that’s only been true since we got rid of coverture laws – which, at the time, seemed like just as radical a change as same-sex marriage seems now. The current definition of marriage doens’t allow children to marry. The current definition of marriage does allow cross-racial marriages. Etc, etc, etc.
To claim that our current definition of marriage hasn’t changed “since time immemorial” is to ignore a long and well-documented history of how defininitions of marriage have changed.
As for whether or not what we have is essentially a religious definition, it’s hard not to notice that nearly (not entirely) all the high-profile opponents of same-sex marriage are extremely religious people from religions that oppose SSM, many (not all) of whom explicitly include religion as one of their reasons for being against SSM.
And whatever the intent, the effect is that evangelical protestants have all their marriages recognized by the state, whereas folks from other religions (reform judaism, wiccan, liberal protestants, etc) only have their marriages recognized when those marriages fit into evangelical protestant norms. At what point does the effective establishment of the majority religion over minority religions run afoul of the establishment clause? Opinions vary, but it’s not obviously ridiculous to see a problem here.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. However, just because those are the standard arguments used, that doesn’t logically establish that all other arguments are ridiculous.
Well, I certainly disagreed with a great deal of what you said, Nephtuli, but nonetheless, you are right about trackbacks being a courteous and good thing to do in the realm of internet blogging. Don’t take Amanda and Ampersand’s (and my, and probably almost everyone on this threads’) disagreement with your views as meaning that trackbacks qua trackbacks aren’t appreciated.
Two major points here:
1) On the sexism issue.
I’m going to respond to both Amanda and Ampersand in this point.
Is the usage of the word “hysterical” in the context of criticizing female intellectuals considered sexism per se? And also, is criticizing someone for his/her attack on purported bigotry racism per se?
I do not believe using the word “hysterical” in that context is automatically sexism. Ampersand’s comparison to the usage of the word “boy” is not accurate. If one is referring to a grown man, it would be difficult to envision a neutral (meaning a use not pregnant with racist intentions) use of that term. In other words, if someone refers to a Black man as a “boy,” we can fairly impute racist intentions or at least find a presumption of racism.
“Hysterical,” however, can be used in a neutral context, whether referring to men or women. Personally I’ve used the term to describe both men and women when I feel their statements reach that standard. I believe its use is analogous to calling a Jew greedy. If someone would call me greedy because I support the President’s tax cuts (and if we assumed that I made a lot more money, or any money at all for that matter), I would not assume he’s anti-Semitic, even if he used the term twice. I would need to see a long history of anti-Semitism rather than just basing my views on an isolated incident. Maybe he doesn’t understand the significance of term; or maybe his feelings that I’m greedy are not based on my religious views. But I have no way of knowing he’s anti-Semitic solely on the basis of that term.
I also do not believe it’s wrong to criticize someone’s opinion on sexism or racism. For example, last year Anti-Defamation League President Abe Foxman criticized The Passion as anti-Semitic. Do you believe all the people who castigated him were anti-Semitic? Certainly not, because I believe there can be an honest disagreement of whether The Passion was anti-Semitic. I also believe we could debate whether Michael Kinsley is sexist and criticizing Estrich because she thinks so is not sexism per se.
2) Onto the marriage issue:
I believe you are using the term “definition” more broadly than I did. What I mean is that the fundamental definition of marriage, which is people of one sex marrying the other, has not changed. Of course one could define marriage more broadly as people marrying people, but my definition is consistent with the underlying purpose that society has accorded marriage, which is procreation and child rearing. Whether this is the purpose today is immaterial. My point is that marriage was recognized as an institution between members of the opposite sex since time immemorial because of this purpose.
Polygamy is merely a modification within this framework, since it did not change the definition I provided. Anti-miscegenation statutes were racist artificial impediments to marriage, but they did not change the actual definition of marriage; if fact the anti-miscegenation statute struck down in Loving v. Virginia was only passed in 1924.
The issue of allowing children to marry falls into the same category. We don’t allow children to marry for policy reasons, but that does not mean under this definition children conceptually cannot marry. And coverture is only an aspect of marriage, not a definition.
It’s because of this definition that I believe that claiming the state prevents same-sex marriage is a misnomer. The state is not preventing anything; it is merely not expanding the longstanding definition.
There are many secular opponents of SSM. But even if there weren’t that has no bearing on the constitutional issue. You claim that the effect of our marriage laws is that they recognize marriages made by Protestants but not Wiccans. If I understand you right, the argument then is that such laws might violate the First Amendment because it supports one religion over another.
This argument is predicated on the idea that if the state is recognizing the marriages of one religion over another, it must be favoring the marriage laws (or just plain laws) of one region over the other. But if the problem is that the state is favoring the marriage laws of Protestantism over Reform Judaism, would it not be just as wrong for the state to favor Reform Judaism by recognizing SSM? Is it not choosing to favor one region over the other?
Honestly, I don’t believe Amanda was arguing that denying SSM is favoring one religion over the other, but that denying SSM is basing marriage laws on religion, which could violate the Establishment clause. Perhaps Amanda could let us know what she meant.
Nephtuli writes: Is the usage of the word “hysterical”? in the context of criticizing female intellectuals considered sexism per se?
um… yes. (unless they’re running around screaming at the top of their lungs & flailing about spastically… and even then it may be debatable).
I do not believe using the word “hysterical”? in that context is automatically sexism. Ampersand’s comparison to the usage of the word “boy”? is not accurate. … In other words, if someone refers to a Black man as a “boy,”? we can fairly impute racist intentions or at least find a presumption of racism.
i am assuming your imputation is based upon some knowledge of the history of racism & sexism in this country. in a similar way, those familiar with the historical use of the term “hysteria” & its variants can fairly impute a presumption of sexism.
“Hysterical,”? however, can be used in a neutral context, whether referring to men or women.
perhaps it can be used in a neutral context, but it usually never is. putting aside the fact that no such thing as a “neutral context” exists when talking about sexism & racism, one can also point to the fact that it is rarely if ever used in the public sphere to refer to men. almost always it is reference to women, and usually as a shorthand way of dismissing what they say.
Personally I’ve used the term to describe both men and women when I feel their statements reach that standard.
so you really think that Ms. Estrich’s letter was characterized by “exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic” (a pretty standard definition of the general use of the term “hysteria”)?
I believe its use is analogous to calling a Jew greedy. If someone would call me greedy because I support the President’s tax cuts (and if we assumed that I made a lot more money, or any money at all for that matter), I would not assume he’s anti-Semitic, even if he used the term twice. I would need to see a long history of anti-Semitism rather than just basing my views on an isolated incident. Maybe he doesn’t understand the significance of term; or maybe his feelings that I’m greedy are not based on my religious views. But I have no way of knowing he’s anti-Semitic solely on the basis of that term.
see, that’s the thing. there is a long history of misogyny & sexism bound up with the term “hysteria”. the fact that you may not be aware of it does not make that history irrelevant.
I also do not believe it’s wrong to criticize someone’s opinion on sexism or racism.
of course not. ask me about Dinesh D’Souza’s opinion on racism someday. but that doesn’t justify the use of the term.
lastly, on your own blog you write: The discrimination that Estrich alludes to is basically non-existent. Her argument is predicated on the assumption that a lack of women proves invidious discrimination is at work. But the issue is, and definitely should be, the quality of the writers, not their gender.
and your evidence is? how do you know what’s going on the Times? your dismissal of her views, with no supporting evidence, coupled with your use of the term “hysterical,” not to mention your vague pronouncements about the state of contemporary Feminism (even after admitting you know little about it) all combined to make a post that seemed quite hostile & sexist in its tone & manner. maybe that wasn’t your intent, but that’s how it comes across…
here’s a pretty good bibliography on the history of hysteria, if you’re interested in finding out more
Can’t really back out of calling a woman “hysterical” for making a justified complaint about women’s lack of representation. That is roughly one of the most tired and obvious stereotypes around that you decided to use in your post. Nearly as bad as aligning Jew and “East Coast liberal”.
You know, I don’t think “hysterical” is akin to “greedy.” There are ideas about women’s irrationality embedded in the very word “hysterical.” I think it’s more like the phrase “to Jew [someone] down,” meaning “to drive a hard bargain.” Whether you’re using the phrase about a Jew or a goy, you’re still, at the very least, reflecting the prevailing anti-Semitism of the culture in which the term originated. Women are hysterical, so a hysterical man is behaving like a woman. Jews are greedy, so a greedy goy is Jewing someone down. Either way, there’s still implicit bigotry.
But I’m curious. Both Estrich and Nancy Hopkins have recently been accused of being hysterical. When was the last time that word was publicly attached to an angry or critical man?
well, a quick review of recent news finds a few random moments of the term “hysterical” being used in a general way… i think there’s one piece there that refers to a man. but Sally’s point holds: when it is used to apply to a man, it is done as feminizing insult (similar to “pussy”).
but, damn! if you want to see the term used in full-fledged unapologetic misogyny, check out the article Mr. Nephtuli originally linked to: Feminists Get Hysterical
best line: It is curious how feminists, when crossed, turn into shrill, hysterical harpies…or, in the case of MIT’s Nancy Hopkins, delicate flowers who collapse at the slightest provocation…precisely the images of women that they claim patriarchal sexists have fabricated to keep them down. Actually, Estrich’s hissy fit is more histrionic than anything the most bitter misogynist could come up with on his own.
harpies!
& if you like that, she’s got more…
I think that there is one circumstance in which “hysterical” is not sexist: if it’s used as complementary way of saying something is really funny. If you tell a funny anecdote, and your friend says “that’s hysterical!” I don’t think she’s being sexist. Could be wrong: perhaps sexist roots in a word taint it even if it has a different meaning, but my opinion is that that use of “hysterical” is okay.
The whole comparison thing makes me uncomfortable. Sometimes it’s useful and sometimes it’s just over-reaching. The problem is that “hysteria” is a word that originally meant only women’s anger, and to this day it tends to be used predominantly that way, though few who use it are consciously aware of the stereotype they are drawing on.
The thing is that the stereotype of the hysterical woman really predates the word “hysteria”, so an analogy to a racial or ethnic slur is hard to come by. That’s why to comparison to “boy”, while a good one, is incomplete. To my mind, the best comparison is to the word “shyster”, a word that was born out of an already existing stereotype, and now that it’s been used so often as a synonym for “cheap”, many people who use it are not consciously aware that they are making reference to an ethnic slur.
The frustrating thing is that every time I have heard someone unwittingly say “shyster” and I let them know that the word doesn’t just mean “cheap” but is an anti-Semitic slur, they have immediately apologized, felt foolish and refused to use the term again. But when you point out to someone that “hysterical” is a misogynist slur, they often get defensive and refuse to believe that they are perpetuating a stereotype. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that people who use the word often tend to use it to lay judgement on women whose anger makes them uncomfortable, which was its original purpose. They aren’t innocent like many users of “shyster” are, and therefore they don’t want to let go of the word.
No matter how complex the rhetoric, there is no denying that the word ‘hysterical’ is most commonly associated with women as a means of silencing. To sit here and attempt to play the ‘I use it for both’ game is to attempt a ploy of naivete that seems incredibly out of touch. You’d be hard pressed to find people that wouldn’t agree that the two words have a long and sordid history.
Before I respond to the arguments over the use of “hysterical,” I would like to point out that my use of the term was not misogynistic in intent and I did not know how derogatory people consider the word. Insofar as people were offended, I apologize and will try to refrain from using the word in the future.
I initially argued that using “hysterical” as a description is not sexism per se. I compared it to “greedy” a term that was used for ages to describe Jews and created a stereotype that led to massive persecution, including genocide. Nevertheless, I feel that using “greedy” even in the context of describing a Jew would not constitute anti-Semitism absent an intention to manifest an anti-Semitic belief. My argument therefore was that although historically “greedy” was used in association with anti-Semitic stereotypes but can be used neutrally today, so can “hysterical.”
The most potent response to this argument is that etymologically “hysterical” has its basis in pretty sordid stereotypes against women, while greedy is not historically derivative from anti-Semitic stereotypes. The argument then continues that using the term perpetuates the implicit sexism that led to the existence of the term in the first place. Therefore a term such as ” Jew down” is more comparable because it originated because of prevalent stereotypes against Jews. I believe this is Sally’s argument.
I disagree. The fact that the origin of the word is sexist does not make the usage of the word sexist. For example, the word “sinister” is linked to the word “left.” In fact the word “left”? itself had bad connotations, usually referring to weaker or lamer. Even today dictionaries still define sinister as left. Of course, left-handedness was considered a weakness and in many cases left-handed individuals were forced to learn to use their right hand.
Yet, I’ve never heard anyone complain that calling someone sinister is a slur and perpetuates anti-lefty discrimination. Why? Because practically no one knows the basis of the word and therefore it has taken on a whole different meaning. But why does that matter if the basis of the word is discriminatory?
Words have meaning. They are usually a manifestation of a person’s intent. If a person uses a word assuming it has a specific meaning, we can readily assume that person intended that meaning. If someone tells you not to buy that watch because it looks “hot,” I doubt you’ll think she is concerned that you’ll burn yourself. Obviously that was not the person’s intention. Do we care if the real dictionary meaning of the word and its etymology have nothing to do with “stolen?” Of course not.
Amanda argues that “hysterical” has its basis in only women’s irrational behavior. I do not believe that argument changes my point. Terms have taken on new meanings throughout history and how it was defined in the past really has no bearing on its use at this point.
I have not done a statistical study but I find it unlikely that the vast majority of the people who use the term know its history. For the same reason, I also do not know if the term is most commonly applied to women. But what I do know is that the term can be used to mean “an excessive or uncontrollable display of emotion” without any relation to men or women.
For this reason I still believe “greedy” and “hysterical” are analogous. I can’t imagine someone using “Jew down” without harboring anti-Semitic notions. The term is prima facie anti-Semitic because of how it’s used and the connection between Jews and bargaining. If I’m wrong, I’d throw it in with “greedy” and “hysterical” and require more to consider its use anti-Semitic.
“Shyster” to me is similar. The truth is, at one time, when I heard the term, I immediately thought the person was using it as a slur. However, I’ve seen it used in neutral contexts and the dictionary definitions do not allude to anything anti-Semitic. If the term is used in a neutral context and the dictionaries consider it neutral, perhaps it is not as much a slur as I originally thought.
I’d like to conclude by apologizing again, and I’d like to see what people think about this.
Sinister has broader uses now, I think. Hysterical, except when someone says, “that joke was hysterical” still is mainly addressed at the same group of people that it was aimed at in a derogatory sense, when the word was created. I don’t give it a lot of thought, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man referred to as hysterical, or made to feel that his concerns were based on “hysteria.”
“Mass hysteria”:
Here’s a link on my city’s most infamous incident which brought up the words, “mass hysteria” primarily b/c almost all the people affected were women. Why women? Not because we are hysterical, fainting creatures prone to suggestion, but b/c most of the employees, nurses, respiratory techs and even doctors were women. The EMTs were men but they were never exposed to any chemical reaction that could have made them sick.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/toxlady.html
Okay, I knew a woman(Maureen Welch) who was one of those who succumbed to “hysteria” and she was sick. Physically sick, to the point where she passed out, revived, went home, experienced breathing problems, came in and was hospitalized, and she was one of the lucky ones. Two of the women, a doctor and nurse, experienced necrosis in their joints, which is not hysteria-based. Actually, what might have happened is that DSMO may have been used as part of a remedy by Ramirez, reacted with oxygen she received from the EMTs, when blood was withdrawn, she had a crystal substance in her blood sample, and that through several reactions, she might have been emitting something akin to nerve gas. The symptoms the hospital employees suffered matched those on a list of exposure to nerve gas. But that’s one theory, and was never proven. What’s sad is that the poor woman, with advanced cervical cancer was treated like a “thing” even after death, especially during the autopsy, when the building they did the procedure in, was far more dangerous than she ever could be. And she died b/c of what was going on around her in the ER. Two of the employees could no longer work at their jobs, because of their illnesses.
If this involved men, hysteria would never, ever been imagined, let alone speculated and stated at some points as FACT. Never…so I bristle at the “hysteria” or “hysterical” words even when I use them, which I do, but not as often as I used to.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if “hysterical” is a term that you ever really see paired with men. But you don’t–even in a supposed science like psychology, “hysterics” is generally considered a female-0nly mental illness. The word still connotates the feminine in a way that “left” doesn’t connotate “sinister” anymore.
People’s stated intent for using a word can be very different than the actual intent. You meant the word to denotate someone you think was being irrational, the word very much connotates a female-specific irrationality.
Nephtuli: the very root of the word is misogynistic and was/is meant to be.
Main Entry: hys·te·ria
Pronunciation: his-‘ter-E-&, -‘tir-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
i know you didn’t mean to Q Grrl, but that description almost makes the Greek concept of hysteria seem vaguely rational, as if it was an actual medical condition they diagnosed. but, as with so much of Greek philosophy, their ideas concerning women’s bodies were… how shall i put it? loonytoony? wackojacko?
the Greek concept of hysteria actually postulated the idea that the womb could get antsy & detach itself & go wandering about in the body. yes, you heard me: a womb bouncing about in the body like a pinball. yes, loonytoony. Plato actually thought it was a little critter, an “animal within an animal”. the cure? for many Greeks the cure was to get the woman pregnant. why? because wombs go wandering precisely because they’re not, so to speak, “getting any”
better still is the Victorian cure for hysteria: induce “hysterical paroxysms” in the suffering patient. what’s that, you ask? well, that’s when you take your poor ailing hysterical wife to the doctor & he gives her a handjob. yes, a handjob. vibrators were actually invented during this period & were touted for their “therapeutic” & “restorative” qualities.
ah, Western civilization….
“but that description almost makes the Greek concept of hysteria seem vaguely rational, as if it was an actual medical condition they diagnosed. ”
Only if their “rational” diagnosis weren’t so misogynistic! I don’t see where you are seeing rationality… ?
My uterus is currently sitting on my shoulder and whispering stuff in my ear. You’d be looney, too. So crazy you’d think that women should have equal rights.
*if* only my uterus would come out of hiding. Damn that thing. I’d show it some crazy making! Indeed.
Nephtuli writes: Yet, I’ve never heard anyone complain that calling someone sinister is a slur and perpetuates anti-lefty discrimination. Why? Because practically no one knows the basis of the word and therefore it has taken on a whole different meaning.
actually i think that probably has to do with the fact that “anti-lefty” discrimination is not exactly what most would consider a serious sociopolitical problem.
I have not done a statistical study but I find it unlikely that the vast majority of the people who use the term know its history.
again, this fact does not make the history disappear.
For the same reason, I also do not know if the term is most commonly applied to women.
then i’d say consider yourself informed. if you’d like, i can provide more sources of studies & works on hysteria in addition to the bibliography i linked to earlier. there’s a rich & enlightening history waiting to be explored if you’re interested.
Q Grrl writes: Only if their “rational”? diagnosis weren’t so misogynistic! I don’t see where you are seeing rationality… ?
sorry! i probably wasn’t being that clear. i just wanted to emphasize the fact that the Greeks were total nutters when it came to female biology (actually they were pretty wack about male biology too, but that’s another story).
but yes, misogynistic as well! in fact, the whole idea of hysteria (which literally means “wombiness”) is essentially that women’s bodies can & will betray them at any moment.
The responses to my argument generally revolved around how hysterical is still used mainly in reference to women. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know. Again, I’ve seen it used to describe people of both genders. Interestingly enough I actually saw someone writing a comment on a Feminist blog that described Justice Scalia that way (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bitchphd/110970475675272179/#90347).
Jam argued that I did not take into account the history of the term. I did. I’m focusing on whether the term has the same meaning it did before. I argued that the meaning of the term has evolved and is no longer linked to female irrationality.
But even if the term is used mostly in reference to women, that does not imply that when people use it, they intend it to be derogatory to women in general. Meaning that when it is used to describe a man the term is not being employed to equate him with female irrationality; the idea is to call him irrational period. I believe this is true because the dictionary definition does not mention female irrationality and because people in general have no idea that the term is based on that idea. Therefore it is my belief (I admit it’s only a belief) that majority of the people who use the term are using it in a gender neutral way.
Other than anecdotal commentary, you’ve done very little to prove or support your hypothesis, Nephtuli. It also can be noted that the idea that hysteria is and was a misogynistic reference in most cases has been both proven and supported.
Not trying to be mean here, but it seems more like you’re trying to prove something because you don’t want to admit it might have been hasty to use the word.
Nephtuli writes: The responses to my argument generally revolved around how hysterical is still used mainly in reference to women. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know.
dude, i don’t know what more either i or the others here can offer you in the way of information concerning this matter. you keep saying you don’t know even though you’ve been pointed in numerous directions for finding out more… at this point, your lack of knowledge is really your own problem.
But even if the term is used mostly in reference to women, that does not imply that when people use it, they intend it to be derogatory to women in general.
actually, i think in a world fundamentally structured by gender inequality that any time a word is used in exclusive (or near-exclusive) reference to women that one needs to be more than a little sensitive toward potential misogyny or sexist meaning. and, yes, maybe lots of folk use it “innocently”. but, you know? where i grew up the terms “fag” & “queer” were used often as synonyms for “stupid” or “uncool” – sure, it was “innocent” (i doubt many of the kids even knew what homosexuality was where i grew up) but that doesn’t mean one would sit back, let it happen, and say, “oh well, they don’t mean anything by it,” right? another good example would be the widespread use of the term “lame” (of which i am often guilty). yeah, folks don’t mean nothing by it, but it still conveys the idea that disability represents something to be shunned, disparaged, etc.
still, i would like to acknowledge that you apologized earlier and stated your intent to refrain from using it the future. i think that’s a good strategy. i mean, you may still privately feel that the word isn’t loaded with the baggage we’re identifying, but insofar as you know others do think this & will potentially regard the use as a means of expressing misogynistic intent, then the best thing is to simply find a different word. i mean, the English language has an extraordinary vocabulary, right? there’s dozens of terms that can adequately & even eloquently convey the idea that you think someone’s acting crazy.
Well, Justice Scalia clearly has a wandering uterus, so I think it was an accurate description in that case.
I think we’re just arguing in circles here. I’m not denying the term had a derogatory basis, but that it no longer does because people do not use it that way. Jam and Kim, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the term is still used in a misogynistic way. I’ve pointed out that the dictionary definition does not allude to female irrationality at all. I can’t prove that people use the word in a neutral way, but I’ve yet to see proof that in 2005 people still use the term in a derogatory way. That’s why I’m sticking by my position that it’s no longer a biased word.
Hmmm, I just pointed out one example of its use in a sexist or misogynist way from oh, way back in 1994. You know, the last century. I’ve had it used against me sometimes when I get too LOUD about certain issues, particularly those dealing with women. And even when the word itself is not used, but the principle of hysteria is used in other language, it still exists.
I’m not saying that it’s not used in ways that are gender-neutral just saying that the use of the word in not so gender-neutral ways still exists in society.
“My uterus is currently sitting on my shoulder and whispering stuff in my ear. You’d be looney, too. So crazy you’d think that women should have equal rights. ”
LMFAO
Nephthuli said…”I can’t prove that people use the word in a neutral way”
That’s because people do not in fact use the word in a neutral way. Your continued insistence that they do clearly proves that you are yourself hysterical. My uteruas told me so.
Maybe a helpful compilation of gender-neutral substitutes for “hysterical” is in order. I’ve always been fond of “blinkered,” to site one example. Everyone blinks, after all. Not everyone has female reproductive organs. :D
And whatever happened to “addlepated” ?
Especially since most of those I’ve seen in hysterics were men. I guess some of us don’t bring out the best in the other gender.
I’ve had some recent runins with “addlepated” people…that sounds pretty good…
Pingback: The Rhetoric of Patriarchy : Green Gabbro