Hoo boy, it would take me weeks of ranting to reply to this post. My beef with education is the fact that we ignore women's voices and contributions to the world all through elementary and high school. Women are a chapter in ever book and a page in every chapter. That has not seriously changed. The only real feminist book I have seen in high school is "The Handmaids' Tale." While I think it's great and about damn time that serious feminist literature was studied in high school, this is far too little to expect from the educational system. Education is still based on the viewpoint of white males. Giving the few people that go on to university an introductory course in feminism is simply not good enough and I think that everybody should demand a lot more from school.

This is just one of many things that is wrong with the educational system. *sigh*

OK, I'm almost afraid to respond to this, for fear of stepping on some toes, but here goes.

My WMST experience is kind of different from many of the members of this community. My background is actually in Philosophy, where one of my areas of specialty is Feminist Theory. Specifically, my dissertation deals with Postmodern Feminism and Environmental Ethics. So I’ve spent some time in the Women’s Studies department, and even taught courses there, at 2 different universities. I guess there are two features shared by these departments that strike me the most. The first, of course, is the critique that has been brought before of the lack of activism. I think this is just due to the nature of academia: it’s detached. That doesn’t mean that I think academic feminism shouldn’t try to take a more active role in shaping the world. I just think it’s difficult to convert theoretical energy and work into “real-world” projects, and I’ve been straddling both worlds for a few years now. In my experience, my “activist” self is quite distinct from my “academic” self, largely because the theoretical areas that yield the best research and writing opportunities don’t overlap much with real-time political struggles. Perhaps this fact alone is a prime topic for a paper.

The second feature of the WMST department that has struck me is a sort of “anemic” quality. In Philosophy the focus is on analyzing, comparing, critiquing, and constructing strong arguments. The idea is, regardless of how much you like an argument’s conclusion, if the reasoning that got you there is weak or outlandish, then the argument sucks. Period. So arguing poorly for a position that I also favor doesn’t get you any mileage with me. However, in my experience, this often isn’t the case in Women’s Studies. Even in classes that are supposed to be exploring and discussing various theoretical positions, there’s often no call for or expectation of a robust comparison of the arguments and assumptions that support these theories. In fact, in some cases, there’s not really any need to make an argument. Just saying what you feel is sufficient. This approach seems fine for other contexts. If we were in a book club or a support group this would be perfectly appropriate. But we’re not. When I’ve taught WMST courses, or Feminist Theory courses within the Phil department, I’ve gotten a lot of resistance from WMST majors. I get the sense from some of them that it’s unreasonable of me to expect them to familiarize themselves with the assigned readings well enough to be able to briefly explain the authors’ arguments, let alone require that they establish an argument in favor of their own position. When asked “on this issue, which position do you favor, and why?” they often respond with a lot of “I feel…” statements. It seems like this sort of touchy-feely approach is generally accepted in WMST, but I think it’s harmful to the department’s reputation within the university as a whole. I’m totally in favor of creating a safe space to discuss this stuff, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take yourself and your colleagues seriously. And beyond being taken seriously, I think that if you want to bring about change in the world, you need to be prepared to offer good reasons in support of those changes. You won’t always be preaching to the choir, and you’ll often be speaking to those who do not share your vested interests. Therefore, you need to be prepared to make a strong argument in support of your position, or you can pretty much expect to be stuck with the status quo. I know this is a rather unpopular view, so I generally keep my mouth shut, but this time you asked for it. =)

P.S. And please can we back off the whole “goddess” thing? Goddess talk never put food on the tables of single moms or made reproductive choices easily accessible. Enough already. (See, now I really have pissed somebody off.)

I see I am now a new fan of Rachel in WY.

In fairness, the "I believe what I want to believe, because I believe it" sort of attitude which is becoming quite common IMHO, is hardly limited to feminists. Naturally, it was an an invention of the privileged, as in why women in the 19th century US were not allowed to go to university for concern of straining their limited minds and a host of other well known "facts".

Rachel - thanks for that great analysis of your experiences within the WMST community. I appreciate it. However, there are points I'd like to bring up. By the way, "amen" on the "goddess" issue - sometimes it makes us look silly. But my contemporaries would argue that there is result in trying to change everyday language to be inclusive of women ...I don't share the view wholeheartedly, but I do understand where they come from.

Often times, in women's studies classes, we voice our opinions via "I feel ..." statements because the class seeks to highlight the lived and personal experiences of women and men, that are out of the mainstream academia. Thus, to study the thoughts and experiences of these people, particularly women, we have to make room for those statements, without the usual reasoning required in other areas of academia. Often, "reasons" are unreasonable, in that they make grand assumptions about certain issues, without taking into account the actual experiences and personal standpoints of women.

I do agree that some universities do lack the "service learning" approach in which students can learn and move on to social justice work (Smith, as I am told by a feminist friend who attended there, is notorious for this), but I think it's the same with any other aras of academia, to include - as I've seen, in the political science department. While there are lots of theories, students aren't afforded hands-on training to approach work in the political world after graduation.

Fortunately, though, those opportunities do come somewhere between a rock and a hard place with both departments. Opportunities for internships and "net-working" are available for students in WMST, as well as other fields. In WMST, as an example, the Feminist Majority Foundation does a great job at establishing Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance groups on various campuses, and giving students the leadership skills needed for these jobs. The opportunities, regardless of the area of academia, are there; students just have to seek for it. The purpose of academic departments is to arm students with knowledge, whereas these various other organizations are also there to give them the experiences they need.

Marc

I never took any women's/gender studies courses at university (as an aside, the course code for the department at my university at one point was DOGS - Dept of Gender Studies!). My initial awakening came via an offhand comment from the Assistant Principal at my all-girls high school. In a very encouraging speech during an assembly (I was about 13), she said that we were fully capable of doing anything we wanted - whether it was considered a male or female job/activity. I remember thinking "But I know that, girls/women can do anything. Why would anybody need to be told that?" I then realised that the life that was modelled for me by my parents wasn't exactly the norm. Growing up in a small country town, with parents who had equal jobs (both high school teachers), all the adults around me did the same stuff (jobs, housework, gardening, skiing, moutaineering, cycling, farming), it never occurred to me that this wasn't how the rest of the world worked.

Over the past few years, I've thought about those amorphous feelings a bit more, and come to identify myself as feminist through my own understanding of my experiences. I could probably benefit from some formal study, but I'm sure I'll come to that in my own time.

I was with you Rachel until you went there with Goddess. Goddess is an incredibly important element for many of us, and a gateway to feminism for quite a few. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "all the Goddess talk" but the concept of female divinity in a world ruled by male divinities can be eye opening, and rejecting patriarchal religion was central to my own journey in feminism. In picking the classes I want to take, I've actually been rather let down that there's not much discussing Goddess religions.

My school has just begun requiring everyone to talk at least one Women's Studies or African-American Studies or Native American Studies class, which is pretty incredible when you consider the fact that it's in Oklahoma. But I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I always felt just a little more comfortable in my Women's Studies classes, which tended to be 80+% female. On the other hand, the few men who were in the classes tended to seem a little clueless when they actually spoke up (though I do applaud them for speaking up in the first place because it must've been intimidating), and I'm afraid that what made me comfortable will be taken from the women who are coming through behind me. There's also the factor that many of the lower level classes that I've had to take that were open to anyone in the school, not just majors in that field, felt more like high school than college, with people talking while the professor was lecturing and that sort of thing. My only reassurance is that my professors were all really good at encouraging everyone to share their thoughts and making sure no one got pounced on, but I wonder if it will work with more males in the classes or when the professors I know are gone.

I also have never had a women's studies class, but I've been a feminist probably all my life. As a kid I never thought that I couldn't do something becuase I was a girl. I played soccer and house and star wars and cops and robbers and barbies equally. I think I found out what pro-choice and abortion were when I was 12 or 13 (pro-life commercial i think), and decided right then that I saw no sense in taking away a woman's right over their body, and if the choice ever came my way I wouldn't hesitate to do what was right for me at the time. I threw shot put in high school and never thought twice about lifting with the guys. I'm not scared to walk alone at night, whether it's from school to my apartment in college town MS or 16 blocks in NYC. I've always felt that men and women were equal, ever since I was aware that there was a difference. I blame my liberal, godless upbringing!!

Rachel_in_WY commented at July 28, 2008 5:34 PM: "The idea is, regardless of how much you like an argument’s conclusion, if the reasoning that got you there is weak or outlandish, then the argument sucks. Period. So arguing poorly for a position that I also favor doesn’t get you any mileage with me."

Definitely read Beyond the Hoax : Science, Philosophy and Culture by Alan Sokol! It includes a lot on why strong arguments, solid reasoning, genuine logic, etc. are important for feminism and other progressive causes - and how by giving up on them we'd be conceding to sexists and other anti-progressives.

Likewise, check out "Book Review: Social Work Theories in Action" at http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:U8HbuSyqqUYJ:intl-qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/5/3/407.pdf+%22how+can+you+speak+truth+to+power%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us (the .pdf is now password-protected, but Google's cache of it isn't):

"...Most problematic and pervasive in its deleterious influence is the authors’postmodern conception of truth. It is not that they engage in a wrongheaded philosophical discussion of epistemology, but that the pervasive discounting of science, objectivity, and truth translates into a general disregard of evidence and argument. There are innumerable unsupported but very confident assertions throughout. There are claims that look like statements of objective truth – for example,‘that power relations do exist’ (p. 102) – even though the possibility of such truth is discounted elsewhere. It is not clear what counts as knowing anything,whether scientific or Maori knowledge,the truths of logic or of poetry...

"...But it is not clear how, when you throw away the weapon of truth,you can expose or oppose injustice.How can you speak truth to power if you think truth is power or does not exist? What makes Holocaust denial less persuasive than the testimony of concentration camp survivors who want above all for the truth to be known? As Geras (1995) puts it:

"'If there is no truth, there is no injustice. Stated less simplistically, if truth is wholly relativized or internalized to particular discourses or language games or social practices, there is no injustice. The victims and protesters of any putativeinjustice [including, we might interject, the subordination of Maori and violation of their treaty rights] are deprived of their last and often best weapon, that of telling what really happened. They can only tell their story, which is something else. Morally and politically, therefore, anything goes. (Geras, 1995: 110)'..."

Rachel_in_WY commented at July 28, 2008 5:34 PM: "P.S. And please can we back off the whole 'goddess' thing?"

Why back off on it any more than on other sets of religions? I mean, sure I've seen some idiot on another forum claim that everyone in the world worshipped the same Mother Goddess until Christianity was founded (maybe she or he was too sheltered to know Judaism wasn't born yesterday?), but there's way more to discussing religious beliefs which include at least 1 female deity than that!

"Then, it made me think - what if women's studies became a discipline - one that is recognized, like the hard sciences, maths, and English?"

What about women's studies classes that are English classes? :) I'd rather see them listed in both departments (making women's studies an interdisciplinary program instead of a separate discipline) than take them out of English departments the way maths classes usually aren't also listed in physics departments.

Likewise for history - taking women's studies history classes, the African-American studies history classes, etc. out of that discipline would leave history departments even more male-dominated and white-dominated than they already are.

When I took my capstone WMS course in undergrad, this was a major debate that we had : do we make 101 a requirement or just let it be as an elective? As an undergrad, I was very torn - I knew how the class fell into my lap and how it changed me. I wanted to think that people would be open to feminist principles if they heard them. However, as a grad student (in Women's Studies) I really don't think it should be a requirement. I think that having people in the classroom that don't necessarily want to be there can really hinder other students in furthering their development of a feminist identity. Rather than delving further into issues, the conversation can get stuck on one thing, like, for example, whether or not abortion is "right." I guess the basic conversations do have to happen sometime, but maybe we should push to have these conversations happen in other non-WMS classes. I also worked with a 101 class in the spring semester. Our class was not enthusiastic about many of the issues we talked about, which was not aided by a particular student that always questioned the instructors and dismissed topics as unimportant. I am sure that if this student was in my 101 class, my experience would have been much different.

As for schools promoting activism, I think that should be a priority, even though oftentimes it is not. At my school, I will say, they do promote events and causes to undergrads, but grad students are not given as much of a push. While some may say that grad students should take their own initiative and get out there, well easier said than done. That PhD program cares more about that published article you wrote than that time you marched in Take Back the Night, at least I'm assuming.

Finally, on a completely unrelated and maybe misplaced note, I am completely disaffected with Women's Studies after spending 1 year in my program. The professors don't even pretend to display any type of unity. They totally play into a hierarchy system that puts student at the lowest common denominator. And most are focused on their own tenure track, which is necessary, but not at the expense of the quality of education/guidance you provide to your students. Are other departments like this? Or is my vision of what a WMS department should be outdated and impractical? I guess what I'm saying is that few things are more inspiring than seeing a group of women that you respect and admire come together in the spirit of feminism. I'm hoping year two brings more (any?) of that.
Thanks for letting me vent on that one!

Well, I've never taken a womens' studies course and my dissertation deals with bugs. I don't really have a lot in common with philosophers, but I am in agreement with Rachel on this one. We need skepticism and reason, not a different kind of bullshit.

I've never taken a women's studies course, so I won't comment on the content of them, because I know absolutely nothing.

But logic and rhetoric are important, because nothing makes an anti-feminist happier than spotting even the tiniest logical flaw in a feminist argument. It's like a birthday and a holiday and winning the lottery all rolled into one for them.

I'm with Rachel in WY, too. Nothing wrong with a little academic rigor.

Just a couple of responses:

I don't necessarily think that all feminists fall into this touchy-feely model of reasoning, I'm just referring to my experiences in WMST departments. And that's not to say that I think there's only one legitimate model of reasoning either. I'm definitely not going around trying to force meta-narratives on anyone. I do think that particular, situated experiences have to be a part of the dialogue. But I also think that being clear-headed and reasoning with people is still the best approach, and the only way to be taken seriously in an academic setting. Of course in Phil this is often taken too far. (I myself have been known to tell my Intro students "In Philosophy, we don't care how you feel, we care what you think." But seriously, if you had to grade their papers, you might find yourself saying this too...) And I do think that relying on your initial sense about an argument or issue is often useful and underrated. Oftentimes your intuition will indicate to you that there's some bad reasoning going on, or some manipulation in a persuasive argument. I just don't think it can end there. Saying "I don't like this argument" or "discussing this issue makes me feel like this..." is not enough. You need to pursue that line until you identify the flaw in the argument or discover exactly what it is that makes you feel uncomfortable with it. And that leads to clear reasoning, which can then be used to establish your position...

And on the Goddess topic - I think Goddess talk is fine in some contexts. I'm just really sick of people assuming that I'm a pagan, or all mystical and floopy because I identify as a feminist. I'm not really that interested in religion, to be honest. And I'm sick of having other women want to talk to me about nothing but the Goddess when the conversation at the bar turns to feminism. And I think it's really hard for a lot of people to take feminism seriously when that's all they associate it with. But this was going to be a quick little comment, so I'll stop now. =)

I've never taken a women's studies class, but I'd really like to. I started to get into feminism last year when I stumbled upon sites like feministing and feministe. I'd always had a niggling feeling about my religious upbringing, and when I found feminism I finally had a name to put to that unfairness I had felt! I started reading feminist literature (I started with the second sex, found that too dense, read the feminine mystique then went back and finished it) and started seeking out more information on abortion, poverty, and racism. I'm going to volunteer at planned parenthood when I return to school in a few weeks.

So pretty much, I went from an apathetic freshman to a very passionate feminist sophomore! I'm really excited to incorporate my newfound passion into my design work and life :)

I think womens studies should be also had in high school. Its especially important at that age because girls dont have a system of interpreting their environment and need to know that they can shape it.

Aspects of womens studies relate to every aspect of a womans life. It ought to be required.
I loved my womens studies university class!

Kate commented at July 28, 2008 11:08 PM: "Finally, on a completely unrelated and maybe misplaced note, I am completely disaffected with Women's Studies after spending 1 year in my program. The professors don't even pretend to display any type of unity. They totally play into a hierarchy system that puts student at the lowest common denominator. And most are focused on their own tenure track, which is necessary, but not at the expense of the quality of education/guidance you provide to your students. Are other departments like this? Or is my vision of what a WMS department should be outdated and impractical?"

I've heard of some other departments being like that whether they're women's studies, economics, astrophysics, or whatever. :/ It seems to be a side effect of the tenure tracks.

katemoore commented at July 29, 2008 1:29 AM: "But logic and rhetoric are important, because nothing makes an anti-feminist happier than spotting even the tiniest logical flaw in a feminist argument. It's like a birthday and a holiday and winning the lottery all rolled into one for them."

Meanwhile, dismissing mathematics, the scientific method, etc. themselves (not to be confused with mathematicians and scientists) as patriarchial is like telling patriarchs "you're the ones who get it right!" For example, gravity does happen IRL so if the theory of gravity is patriarchial then patriarchy would be an accurate world view.

Rachel_in_WY commented at July 29, 2008 1:39 AM: "And I do think that relying on your initial sense about an argument or issue is often useful and underrated. Oftentimes your intuition will indicate to you that there's some bad reasoning going on, or some manipulation in a persuasive argument. I just don't think it can end there. Saying 'I don't like this argument' or 'discussing this issue makes me feel like this...' is not enough. You need to pursue that line until you identify the flaw in the argument or discover exactly what it is that makes you feel uncomfortable with it. And that leads to clear reasoning, which can then be used to establish your position..."

Right on! :)

Likewise, highlighting the lived and personal experiences of women and men who are out of the academic mainstream can be a great start to making disciplines like economics, history, medicine, political science, psychology, sociology, etc. more reasonable.

For example, saying "she feels she's not getting by in this system" isn't enough. Dismissing reason when thinking about her case is a step backwards. Pursing that line until you find out how she's not getting by in the system, which changes to the system could let her get by, how to make those changes, etc. is stepping forward!

I am currently in college and we don't have a women's studies program but we have studied feminism in English and Media Studies modules. In fact I am currently deciding on a topic for my thesis which will be about women in media. I am from Ireland and we don't have any women's studies programs in any of our universities and yet there are still people who complain that the education system is being 'feminised' and that that is bad. I think gender studies should be taught on a wider scale and in other subjects women's contributions should be more valued.

I was raised in a Catholic family , my parents are not well educated so I became a feminist simply by seeing my grandmother cooking , cleaning and being treated like a servant by her husband and sons who sat in front of the tv barking orders. Also she believed that men were somehow better in God's eyes and going to church and hearing the priest say utter nonsense about the role of women prompted me to search for the truth from a young age. I was a feminist before I had even hear the word.

I think it's crucial to get a WS course in at the high school level. There is a campaign going on in my parts to do just that - The Miss G Project at http://www.themissgproject.org/
They seem to be making some headway, which is encouraging.

I am completely against Women's Studies programs, so I am very interested to hear why other people love them. At my college, the Women's Studies department was very active on campus, and it eventually succeeded in completely shutting down the conservative newspaper because they found it offensive. I do think there needs to be a lot more research done on women, but Women's Studies departments (in my experience) are made up mostly of mediocre-thinkers-turned-political-ideologues.

My entire life experience incrementally motivates me to be multicultural-minded -- which for me, includes being feminist (and I don't mean this in some politically-correct-male way). Also, make no mistake, I'm still sexist (sometimes consciously when made aware of such and I am sure unconsciously). I suspect this will be the contradictory-case until the day I die, unless America (and the world) becomes 100% sexism free. I doubt that, at least not in my life time:

1. I was physically (not sexually) abused by my divorced single parent black male household dad. Many times he almost killed me. He also abused my siblings -- and our mother.

2. I woke up one morning at the age of 15 with my best-male friend performing fellatio on me. My first hateful thought/impulse was to kill him. Yes, I was a die-hard I hate gays, lesbians, homophobic. This hateful-value-system was the no-joke-norm in the hard-core, impoverished, racial-torn, gang violence, kill or be killed ghetto projects -- especially for black males (teen and adult).

3. A white racist male bully and his male friends at age 16 -- before we eventually became best-friends 1-year later and then he and I were jumped by blacks who hated whites and anyone befriending them. I had been chased with knives, bats, chains, and other weapons by white teen and adult gangs, including racially abused and tormented by white males cops.

4. I witness many blacks kill each other, be killed by racist whites, and employer discriminate in what today we would think evil.

5. I entered the military, travelled overseas, and saw multicultural world of nations. They were not perfect. Many diverse people were different, less hateful, less racist, less killer-mentality, than what I had experienced in America.

6. I got discriminated-again by many employers after leaving the service and returning to Boston. Things had changed but new forms of hatred, bigotry, poverty, and segregation took the place of the old forms.

So, I returned to college full-time as an older adult at age 25. My goal was to learn as much as I could about why so many individuals and groups hated each other, why so many individuals hated themselves and abused others (such reflected in my own life experiences). My plan was to use this knowledge to become a public interest and civil rights attorney and CHANGE the world. Well, that never happened (lol). However, I did study sociology at Amherst College, making sure 75% of my courses would be in woman and gender studies and feminist theory, augmented by some critical studies in African American Studies, and group and organizational conduct. I had brilliant professors -- male and female, straight and gay. I would not trade my education for a billion dollars. Note I attended an urban community college before Amherst. I was immersed in an empowering, multicultural, student and faculty environment. This empowered me to succeed at a mostly white, elite, private college like Amherst, and then go on to graduate school.

In short, my life experiences compelled me to inquiry about how and why we do what we do (especially bad things to each other). Woman and gender studies was a wise and logical choice of education, consciousness-raising, for me along with all of my other studies -- if for no other reason than to redeem my Dad's bad conduct towards his wife and siblings and the hateful racist society that helped turn him into a monster instead of only a loving father. My only regret is that I did not also study philosophy (logic, rhetoric, etc) as Rachel in WY cites. I 100% agree with her that whether in academic or the real-world, if you cannot argue, debate, and dialogue your perspectives in a reasoned, less fallacious logic, fashion, then you doing yourself and your perspective an injustice. Anyone can passionately advocate group-think, Argumentum ad hominem abusive, circumstantial, and especially populum. But as we can see from what professional politicians do, especially those running for national office, media pundits, and 527 swift boating groups, and others, and the dynamics (racism and sexism) acting itself out in the Obama and Clinton campaigns, one can see why rigorous intellectual, theoretical, praxis is indispensable -- if feminism is to evolve and effect real-world change in 300 million of us.

Thank you for permitting me to share my OneVoice amongst Many

poetry lover commented at July 29, 2008 5:24 PM: "I am completely against Women's Studies programs, so I am very interested to hear why other people love them...I do think there needs to be a lot more research done on women, but Women's Studies departments (in my experience) are made up mostly of mediocre-thinkers-turned-political-ideologues."

What about when women's studies programs aren't in women's studies departments but are interdepartmental programs? For example, NU has a lot of programs that don't have departments, including women's studies: http://www.northeastern.edu/cas/programs/index.html

Instead, courses that count for the program are in usually in other departments and count for those too (see see http://www.dac.neu.edu/womens.studies/undergraduates/ ). A few do get the interdisciplinary label instead of having a department to call home (see http://www.neu.edu/registrar/ocs-mn-fl08-u-c-hk.html#CINT , including not only women's studies courses like INT U103 Women's Studies but also some non-women's studies courses like INT U210 Marine Mammals and INT U699 Advanced Television Production ).

For examples:
INT U103 Women's Studies
SOC U402 Feminist Perspectives on Society

AFR U185 Gender in the African Diaspora
BHS U105 Nutrition
CJ U500 Gender, Crime, and Justice
ENG U613 Shakespeare's Tragedies (my guess is that course content includes women even if the title doesn't)

I bet those women's studies professors are doing their research in interdisciplinary ways too (taking women's experiences and perspectives into account while doing research in their departments).

OneVoice commented at July 30, 2008 4:17 AM: "2. I woke up one morning at the age of 15 with my best-male friend performing fellatio on me."

That's rape.

OneVoice commented at July 30, 2008 4:17 AM: "My first hateful thought/impulse was to kill him. Yes, I was a die-hard I hate gays, lesbians, homophobic. This hateful-value-system was the no-joke-norm in the hard-core, impoverished, racial-torn, gang violence, kill or be killed ghetto projects -- especially for black males (teen and adult)."

Meanwhile, my first thoughts on reading this were "that norm sucks, both for the GLBT people who have to live there and even for heterosexual people there pressured to be less accepting" and "you don't have to be homophobic to hate someone who has sex with you against your will, even if it's oral sex and even if that someone's the same gender as you."

OneVoice commented at July 30, 2008 4:17 AM: "4. I witness many blacks kill each other, be killed by racist whites, and employer discriminate in what today we would think evil."

...and in what was already evil back when it happened even though the society accepted it back then.

OneVoice commented at July 30, 2008 4:17 AM: "one can see why rigorous intellectual, theoretical, praxis is indispensable -- if feminism is to evolve and effect real-world change in 300 million of us."

As well as 6.5 billion of us! :)

OneVoice commented at July 30, 2008 4:17 AM: "Thank you for permitting me to share my OneVoice amongst Many"

Thank you for sharing!

I agree with your observations Mina with one exception:

" ... you don't have to be homophobic to hate someone who has sex with you against your will ... if that someone's the same gender as you."

Beyond the legality issue of rape (non-consensual oral sex), that other concept, value, and cultural practice (or ISM) would you use Mina to define and explain why I felt murderous-hate for my same-gender male-friend? I say this because I did not have the same murderous-thoughts whenever I woke up and found a black female fooling around with me -- kissing me, feeling me up, and going down on me. I either consented or rebuked her ... and the latter because I viewed her as being FAT, SKINNY, or UGLY ... not because I felt she was raping me. Moreover, if I woke up and found that closet-gay male friend performing penis-anal-sex on me (in contrast to fellatio or rimming) then I would have defined and viewed it as "faggot-rape" (gay-male-sodomy) and killed (murdered) him ... without remorse or hesitation.

I was homophobic (and the hateful, murderous, kind) at that time. The only reason I did not murder him, was because he was my best-friend, where that deep love and loyality I had for him evoke a "behaviorial-pause" in my mind and heart and thus my reaction. Even then, I spent weeks wrestling with my hatred of him being gay (at the time a "faggot") and my deep love and loyality to him as a macho ghetto male friend. Fortunate for him and me, the "friendship-love" prevailed ... though our friendship remained siliently strained from that day forward. I forgave him -- extended him a perverted form of redemption.

In retrospect, yes, regardless of gender and orientation, such a non-consensual experience could be defined as rape -- assuming one has to consent to any act of sex prior versus de facto. Could you imagine a lover (of any gender and orientation) charging their partner with RAPE because that partner initiated a sexual act (kissing, foreplay, touching, penetration, oral) on them while they were sleep -- thinking their lover would wake up and joyfully, pleasureably, orgasmically consent-participate:) This could be legally argued ... for to my knowledge there is not concept/legal defense of "blanket-consent", where once you become lovers, then you have automatic permission to sex-out your partner whenever you desire, whether they are sleep or awake:)

So, please, Mina what other ism-value or non-ism value and term might have evoked my hateful and murderous thoughts if not homophobia -- as being raped was not my conscious heterosexual or legal thoughts, sophistication, at the time. This also raised the question -- would YOU (if your female) or any female (gay or straight) feel like she was raped if she woke up and found a same-sex (but opposite orientation) woman performing sexual acts on her? How many women/teens rape women/teen (in contrast to male/female assaults)? I admit I don't know those stats, and have rarely hear about such in our male and heterosexual dominated media, with the exception of adult females having sex with non-age-of-consent minors.

Thank you Mina for sharing -- and for broadening and deepening my perspectives and inquiry.

My kudos!

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "I agree with your observations Mina with one exception:

"' ... you don't have to be homophobic to hate someone who has sex with you against your will ... if that someone's the same gender as you.'

"Beyond the legality issue of rape (non-consensual oral sex), that other concept, value, and cultural practice (or ISM) would you use Mina to define and explain why I felt murderous-hate for my same-gender male-friend?"

I actually didn't have any other explanation in mind. I just thought "I'd hate someone who did that to me, no matter what gender, so I could understand someone else feeling the same way."

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "I say this because I did not have the same murderous-thoughts whenever I woke up and found a black female fooling around with me -- kissing me, feeling me up, and going down on me."

See, I didn't know from your previous post that you didn't hate his female counterpart for doing the same stuff to you.

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "assuming one has to consent to any act of sex prior versus de facto. Could you imagine a lover (of any gender and orientation) charging their partner with RAPE because that partner initiated a sexual act (kissing, foreplay, touching, penetration, oral) on them while they were sleep -- thinking their lover would wake up and joyfully, pleasureably, orgasmically consent-participate:)"

Yes, if the awake partner just assumed the sleeping partner would be happy about it instead of asking ahead of time if she or he wanted that.

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "This could be legally argued ... for to my knowledge there is not concept/legal defense of "blanket-consent", where once you become lovers, then you have automatic permission to sex-out your partner whenever you desire, whether they are sleep or awake:)"

There's a midde ground: actually talking about the issue with one's lover ahead of time (like "is it OK if I do X when I get home tonight?" or "is it OK if I do X when you're asleep?"), instead of never asking if she or he could want it and/or assuming she or he must always want it just because she or he is your lover.

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "would YOU (if your female) or any female (gay or straight) feel like she was raped if she woke up and found a same-sex (but opposite orientation) woman performing sexual acts on her?"

I sure would if she didn't get my permission ahead of time, the same way I would if I woke up and found a man doing that to me without getting my permission ahead of time.

OneVoice commented at July 31, 2008 8:19 PM: "Thank you Mina for sharing -- and for broadening and deepening my perspectives and inquiry."

You're welcome, and thanks again!