Recently in Theory Category

I was reading io9 this recently, and found an article about a study of water striders. Basically, the study was set up so that the water striders had a “wading pool equipped with special doors that could restrict movement between groups or allow the insects to move freely”

When the insects were allowed to move freely, the females would move over to the “gentlemen” insects, and lay “about three times more eggs” leaving the aggressive male water striders to stew in their own failure. Past lab studies restricted female water strider movement, but given the freedom to choose, female water striders chose the males without sexual aggression. i.e.: Male aggression does *not* lead to reproductive success.

As Annalee Newitz of io9 puts it: 

“Who knows how much research into sexual selection has been flawed because researchers forgot the crucial ingredient of female freedom?”

Not to mention that if one were to extrapolate from this study, it debunks all the “nice guys (no TM) finish last” myth. The image of hyper-masculinity, the forceful sexuality that supposedly leads to “scoring chicks” is actually a detriment to a male’s goal if that goal is to attract women. 

The article (along with a graph) is here:

I've been having an interesting conversation with another commenter (elsmith7) on the comment thread about women changing their last names after marriage and it's made me think about some larger issues of how we view the daily practice of feminism.  We were arguing (in a very polite way, I hope!) about whether you can differentiate the act of choosing from the choice itself.  I said that when a woman sits down and thinks about the decision of naming herself, regardless of what she chooses, she has engaged in a feminist moment of choosing her own identity.  The other commenter countered that when a woman chooses to keep her own name, she is in fact striking a blow against the partiarchy, and in this sense, it is her choice itself which is feminist, rather than the process by which she obtains it. 

This coversation, however, has made me think about "choice feminism" in general and what it really means to us today.  As pro-choice advocates for reproductive rights, we talk about the choosing process as inherently femininst.  Whatever a woman decides to do with her body and her fetus, I think most of us would agree that it can be seen as a feminist decision because it was made with her initiative and expressed her control and physical agency.  It is not the abortion or the newborn that is feminist; it is the decision which the woman made.  However,this argument seems to become more complicated when talking about women choosing to be stay at home moms or to take their husband's last name, things that seem to traditionally support partriarchal systems.  And yet, when a woman engages in a thought process about one of these issues, isn't she essentially engaging in a feminist discourse?  Isn't it a feminist act to consider those options which feminism has given us, regardless of the end result, to exercise complete power and control of our destinies and identities?  Can we talk about the choosing process itself as an abstract system of feminist engagement?

I wanted to post this link to an article by philosopher Martha Nussbaum about the work of Judith Butler and, by extension, certain currents in academic feminism.  Nussbaum, not surprisingly, crystallizes certain worries I've had since reading Ann Cudd's excellent Analyzing Oppression just this past summer.  After reading Cudd's work, I found myself asking why all feminist theory couldn't be so clear and incisive.  

For those of us in the academy, the lit-crit/Continental-philosophy-as-found-in-English-departments wing of the movement is somewhat problematic.  While always happy to take on more allies in the Good Fight, much of what is said and written in this tradition is obscure, if not outright incomprehensible, and it associates feminism unfairly and unpleasantly with a bankrupt intellectual tradition.  I'm not sure what to do about it except encourage women students who are interested in theoretical work to pursue programs of study which will genuinely prepare them - indeed, this would be to our advantage in any case.  The NYTimes' fatuous piece here makes many mistakes, such as categorizing Ayn Rand as a philosopher and repeating the condescending chestnut that women eschew philosophy because it's too "combative," but it brings up a good point.  Another relevant blog post can be found here.

(Full disclosure: these links via Brian Leiter's blog) 

This quote is exerpted from the article on Facebook/MySpace and its race issues.

"Many of us in this room come from privileged worlds where we want to "help" those who are not well-off. Here is where a privilege-check is necessary. How often do our language and mannerisms reflect a problematic level of condescension? Perhaps we should look at our teens. They are certainly speaking in a manner that reveals distrust and condescension."

Truly, really, how do you know when you are working for good and when you are being a self-righteous jerk?

Having been poor, and worked through college, and now I work with the poor, I see many many posts pretty much saying privileged people should leave the poor alone and not try to "help" them, and I am confused.

Does that mean soup kitchens shouldn't exist? Or libraries? Or if you get a good factory job that means a steady paycheck you should buy a tract house and never go back to the shack your family has?

OK, I'm privileged. I'm average looking, speak good English, went to college and pass for white. Is the ethical solution to stop collecting for the food pantry, stop talking about it, or do it in secret? Is taking in a Fresh Air person a bad thing? I work with teens, many (but not all) impoverished. They work like crazy to be helpful in the community. Some of the posts make me wonder if they should.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending. I really don't know what the thinking thing to do is.

Cross posted at Pink Scare.

Scholars have taken many approaches to this question, usually ending up talking about the division of labor. Sex difference and inequality had to be enforced so women would raise a work force for us and not ask for any pay. And her children would be good workers, because she did "woman" right and taught them right. In other words, so that they would provide the domestic labor necessary to continue the cycle of labor in the public sphere (see Angela Davis ). The capitalist needed domestic servants so they created good man and good woman by promoting the bourgeois morality.

This is an answer which has always made sense to me, but I've never seen it as a complete explanation of patriarchy as we see it today, since it doesn't even begin to capture capitalism as we know it today. So many women work outside the home now, for instance, and capitalism relies on that public labor. And in my life, patriarchy has been less about telling me where to work (or not to work), than about telling me what to buy.

Anyone who has taken a marketing class, or worked in marketing, or watched Mad Men (I've done all three) has heard the phrase: Who is your target market? The identification of your market is more than just an identification of a demographic. It's what tells you how to sell your product. If your target market is boys between 12 and 18, you're going to make this edgy, you'll use black and green colors, and you'll play some rock music in the background, and you'll portray the use of your product as an act of rebellion. Yeah, those boys will eat that up. But where did all this knowledge about which group likes what comes from? I argue that advertising itself created it. Sure. certain demographics may have leaned certain ways to begin with, but adveritising made them lean harder in the old categories and made them start to lean in categories of difference that never existed before.

Advertisements are my daily lesson in how to be a woman. Most feminists have known that advertisements are a significant medium for gendering and outright sexism, and criticism of representation is incredibly easy to find on feminist blogs and in feminist books today (see Sarah Haskins' "Target Women," which is really the best of the best of this criticism).

One of the more critical aspects of feminism, for me, is the personal narrative and as well, honesty, so I'll approach this post with as much honesty as possible.

I write this as a third-wave liberal feminist: sometimes, I am not overly comfortable with the presence of men within the feminist movement. In my journey within the movement, I've heard time and time again that a great deal of women are suspicious of the involvement of men within the movement, and it seems lately, I am beginning to feel the same way.

I walk carefully within feminism, often taking the time to ask myself which types of involvement are appopriate and which are not. My own answer isn't fitting for anyone else, but it seems there are places men do not belong in feminism. I am talking about safespace and the fact that, perhaps, the mere presence of men makes women so uncomfortable to the point where they won't voice their own opinions. One of the aspects of feminism is about allowing women to find their own voices in talking about their experiences - but the constant presence of men, it seems, will only thwart that effort.

At times, it seems I see a great deal of men being involved in issues of women sexuality. For me, it almost seems inappropriate because as men, we really have nothing to contribute when it comes to the personal sexual experiences of women - we've never lived their lives. Our part, then, is to deconstruct our own sexualities and our views of sex and how they shape our relationships with women. It's one thing to "listen to women," it's another thing to seem almost overly concerned - almost creepy - when it comes to women's sexuality.

Sure, feminism needs all the allies it can get, but the involvement of men seems to be a backlash for feminism sometimes. Men, especially those unaware of their own privilege and power, can do more harm than good for the movement.

As well, the whole chest-pounding "I-am-a-feminist" practice makes me uncomfortable. Men can be involved in feminism, and to a certain extend, even take leadership roles within it, but to expect a cookie for it, or even recognition, is wrong. For some, it seems feminism is a dating service or a pick-up line, rather than genuine altruism and the desire to make a difference.

After all, for men, it is much easier to stand in front of women telling them how committed he is about feminism, but it's much harder, and truly makes more of a difference, to tell a bunch of non-feminist men about the plights of women.

As I type this, there are a great deal of men making a difference within feminism - Jackson Katz, Robert Jensen being among them - and they rarely work with women. While I am all for inclusion and working together, it seems we almost need to work as two entities, while using one another as allies.

Think of it in terms of race: could a white person, no matter how genuine, know the lived experiences of black people? A white person's position isn't to tell black people they are oppressed or that he is feeling their pain, but rather, engaging white racists and talking to them about the injustices of racism.

I just framed this question of men's involvement within the feminist movement to my roommate with the race example, and he said, "I'd just think that white man is trying to get some votes."

Thoughts? Personal narratives? Suggestions?

The problem: I'm 20 and in college.

The other problem: I'm confronted with probably the first situation in my life where I like someone where, if anything is going to happen, I will have to make a significant first move.

I've been all about encouraging my other girl friends and guy friends to make the move. If you get rejected, well, it happens to everyone. However, things have always worked out that the guys I have liked got around to making the move before I had to seriously consider if I had to do it. I showed up and looked pretty.

I've never really had a problem being single. I'm okay with who I am. I like what I'm doing in my life, and my end goal is medical school. I don't sit around fantasizing about having a family one day. I do, however, always think there will be someone for me to love and take care of in my life, whether that person is a child, friend, or a lover. I've come to realization that I need people, but at the same time, I don't consider myself 'needy' and craving a significant other all the time. I just enjoy relationships with people.

It's a shocker to realize I've played along with the patriarchy for so long. How can I translate my feminist 'theory' into practice? And, more importantly, how does a girl make the first move?

I know it's beyond dead horse beating at this point (skeleton horse beating?), but this Chicago Tribune story on Chris and Rihanna, I feel, requires a different angle of attention:

Oprah Winfrey weighed in on the issue Thursday, featuring Tyra Banks and a video clip of Brown talking on a 2007 episode of the "Tyra Banks Show." On it, Brown said his mother was a domestic violence victim. It was so terrifying to grow up around it, he said: "I had the Bible under the pillow because I was scared." He said he treats women differently because he wouldn't want to put anyone else through that.

While this particular interview from Brown's past has already been given the thorough cultural foot-in-mouth treatment from nearly every news outlet imaginable, I think it helps to reinforce a theory I've been stewing on for a while now: you just can't seem to trust the guy who says he's "different."

In reading Okra's recent post about the word "privilege" , I realized that we (feminists, humanists, anti-racists, people who believe in equality even if it hurts) often talk about the negative side of privilege, the blindness that many of us have to our own and what it means to take responsibility for it.

But I don't remember ever seeing a post on the positive side of acknowledging our privilege.

I suppose, as those of us with privilege knock down our own protective self-awareness obstacles, it is easiest to see how hard it is.  Realizing privilege is a huge and difficult step.  Being able to recognize it in action and stop it if we can is even harder.  Knowing our privilege and acting in spite of it is, for me at least, the hardest of all.  But that difficulty is not all there is.

There is also finding our way through that maze and into a greater understanding of our fellow human beings, a greater acknowledgement of their unique self both as part of and separate from the categories we've been taught.

I read Macon D's post about white privilege in vacationing when it first appeared on Racialicious.  It was really a tremendous tearing-down for me to begin to think about all of the "exotic" places I've always wanted to travel and the ways that my attitude towards them was more about expecting ownership than being respectful of the true owners. 

At first, I refused to believe that it was white privilege at all.  Shouldn't everyone be able to go anywhere they like? the thoughts went.  Can't everyone go wherever they like?   (You can still see my comment to that effect; I posted under the name waxghost.)

My co-blogger received the following statement from an acquaintance, which initially upset both of us (mostly for the illogic that the person apparently lives his life with). However, from this frustration came great joy after we sent it to one of our loyal readers – who sent a lengthy response. I wanted to share it here, with the Feministing Community, as a reminder to all those who might have had a run in with a particularly offensive individual recently.

Both writers are men, both were raised in predominately Christian homes, both identify as republicans, and yet they clearly see gender and women through distinctly different lenses. While the responder’s responses aren’t all something I would necessarily encourage (particularly the discussion of how special/superior vaginas are), I would be inclined to chalk it up to humor over anything else. I hope you all appreciate the following as much as I did:

Original Text in Italics, Reponses are in Bold

This guy is retarded. Here's why:

"When women mock the restraint/values/importance that civil men display towards the fairer sex, it hastens women's demise. 

Demise?

Women haven't ascended to "equality" autonomously, and neither is their equality and influence maintained in such a way.

 Equality maintained? Women are equal (except for in penis having. Vastly superior in vagina having)

The virtue and value placed on women, for whatever reason, should be appreciated for it's influence on men's mindsets towards women instead of mocking it.

Should white privilege prevent feminist researchers studying women of colour? Is it possible to present an accurate portrayal of marginalisation or Othering, from a white Western position?

Lately, following a few blog posts on the problems of visions of The Oppressor seen in white feminists – most recently Renee’s anger at pearl-clutching racism-denying ‘straw women’ at Feministe – I have become bothered by thoughts that my own, academic, research on the intersections of gender, race, ethnicity, religion and class could bring me under similar attack. It was also useful to read Samhita’s post on intersectionality .

I could be one of the Oppressors telling the Oppressed how it is, what their lives are like.

This is not a defence of white (second-wave) feminism’s appropriation of women’s issues or marginalising of women of colour.

I am a British middle-class young white feminist, and I am in the first year of my PhD. I know this puts me in a privileged position. However, learning to read, think, and analyse I hope would also put me in a position to give consideration and weight to real, embodied experiences, to learn to avoid essentialising.

My research is in identity, embodiment, and femininity in the context of physical education and sport in school (sport pedagogy). I use third-wave feminist and poststructuralist analyses. I’ve only recently started, and my supervisor is attempting to guide me towards focusing on the experiences of (British) Muslim girls in physical education. She is also white, middle class and Western. But I find anger directed at white feminists who retain supremacy in feminisms, in feminist theory or movements, especially those who gain media interest, who have potentially co-opted, silenced, belittled, essentialised or marginalised non-white, non-Western, or non-secular women.

If I talk to, observe and give a voice in academic research to young women of colour, or young women of a minority (in the UK) religion, am I in the end providing one more white viewpoint on the ‘minorities’? Can I know *anything* about ‘them’? Shouldn’t it be a Muslim feminist researcher doing this? Should I be researching only those young women whose experiences I may have shared? Am I completely unable to understand the experiences of anyone? These are the fears I feel after reading attacks of white feminism.

I expect there are Muslim or British Asian (feminist) researchers who cover sport pedagogy. I haven’t done a literature review on the topic yet. Am I unable to add anything? Anything I do say will involve listening to and reporting on the voices and experiences of those I research. I might not want to study young women who are ‘like me’ – I’m not sure what this means, since identities are often so fragmented.

I would be dismayed if my voice as a researcher was considered invalid, or unwanted. I wouldn’t want to approach any research in a school and be rejected by the young women who I would potentially want to interview because I am of a privileged group ostensibly looking down on them. Research in my area is based on articulating the experiences and perspectives of many people or groups and thus working towards making P.E a positive learning environment. Yet I am painfully aware of critiques of white academic traditions.

I’d really value any feedback or advice or points of view on this. Have any other academics here had problems like this? And apologies to all readers who find my academic words boring :)

1. The way French Feminists deal with social, Marxist, and psychoanalytic theory
2. Their antifoundationalism and use of genealogical approaches
3. The work of French feminists on the social construction of race, gender, and sexuality is unsurpassed (in my humble opinion)
4. The focus on language and its embodiment of patriarchal norms
5. The way many French Feminists have been so good at balancing political activism with a focus on theory
6. The multiplicity of writing styles that French feminists are willing to use, and their use of metaphor
7. The relentless insistence on exposing instances of norming/othering
8. The work many French feminists have done to expose the inherent ties between capitalism and patriarchy
9. The inclusiveness that follows from their assumption that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc stem from the same systemic sources and are motivated by similar impulses
10. Simone de Beauvoir. (and Colette Guillaumin, Christine Delphy, Monique Wittig, Michèle Le Dœuff ...)

Dear feminist friends -

To borrow a acronym from the military BLUF - or bottom line up front, here is my question: what does feminism require of me to be a better ally? Specifically, what does radical feminism require of me? No matter what I do, it seems as though I will never be good enough of an ally, or that I always seem to do something wrong, from the perspective of radical feminism.

To be sure, I am a third-wave liberal feminist. Do you know that bumper sticker that says, "I am a radical feminist, not the fun kind?" Well, I am the fun kind of feminist, not the radical kind. I am a political activist; I eat meat; I enjoy sex; I have political ambitions, and I have a career in the military - which I started at the hopes of one day going into politics. Yet, from the radical feminist perspective, even all those things are patriarchal.

Surely, I am in no way bitching. As a male, full of privilege, my life whether radical feminists accept me or not, will still be a good one. I will go on to have a great political career - among others, whether I get the acceptance of radical feminists or not.

But it seems whenever we talk about various sects of feminism, it is to criticize, rather than to try to be better allies or work together. So, that's why I am asking the question of how I can be a better ally.

A few examples: it is claimed that my eating meat is patriarchal - but can I also be a feminist and remain real? Isn't okay to ensure that disadvantaged women, whether of the Western world or in developing nations, get enough to eat, be it meat or vegetables?

It is also claimed that politics in itself is patriarchal - that it is one class ruling over another. Yet, to make the lives of the disadvantaged better, shouldn't we focused on the legislative efforts to make women's lives better? I may not understand everything that women face, but how is my desire to make the political process a more woman-friendly space patriarchal?

As for sex, some feminists have claimed that even casual sex - that kind that comes with no emotional attachment, is one that is demeaning to women, because women are seen and viewed as vehicles to one's pleasure, rather than actual human beings. I, of course, do not share this view, but it does bother me that some view sex as entirely patriarchal, even if two people mutually agree to and enjoy it. One incident that still sticks with me is when I was reprimanded for saying "just because a woman looks tasty does not mean you've got to treat her like a piece of meat." I am told that to say a woman looks tasty, in itself, is sexist.

As for military service, last night, watching a 60 Minutes program about a female soldier receiving the Silver Star for her service, I shared the story with some people, and were told that even my military career, in itself, is patriarchal - that military service is not consistent with feminism. Some feminists would go on to say, and even attack, academia, saying that it is also patriarchal, setting a certain set of standards that women have to follow - and that even women's studies classes, themselves, are not beneficial to women.

So, again, my goal is not to please anyone. This is as much my movement as it is anyone else's. But I am detecting a cultural and philosophical gap between the 2nd-wave, radical movement and my own. A long time ago, as a freshman, I was told by my Intro to Women's Studies professor that feminism is what each woman makes of it. If that were the case, and if feminism isn't about genitals, then am I not allowed to believe my own philosophies and practices, and participate in the "real world," so long as I don't lose sight of my feminism?

To be sure, the world view of radical feminism I just painted is only limited to a handful of feminists I've met. But I do feel, as though, they deserve to be heard, too. What is it that radical feminism wants of me? How can I be a better ally?

Feminist literary theory is a kind of re-colonisation or de-colonisation of the objectified  and  female body.  It is also a tool by which to interrogate the repressive and performative situations of feminity both in society and syntax.  To quote from Virginia Woolf,

Women have served all these years as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its size.  Without that power probably the earth would still be swamp and jungle. (A Room of One’s Own )

Certainly, this ‘looking-glass’ image is integral for feminist theory.  The ‘looking-glass’ reads as both a pane through which an image can be seen, as well as a surface merely reconstructing the ‘see-er’.  The ‘through’ (glass) method can offer some sort of resistance, a return scrutiny of the viewer and two-way sight, whereas the latter position only allows limited mimetic reflection.  ‘Women’ oscillate between the two potentialities.

Anyone who has ever taken a women's studies class has probably read Peggy McIntosh's article on white privilege. For anyone who hasn't read the article, she describes male privilege, and then compares this to white privilege by listing all kinds of privileges white people have that often go unacknowledged, such as being able to speak without being trapped into having your opinion represent everyone of your race or being able to find people who look like you represented in the media. If anyone hasn't read this article, I really recommend finding a copy because it forces some people to acknowledge privilege that is usually ignored and to think critically about things that have happened in their lives.

I've really been really thinking about all the privileges I have and how I would absolutely not be where I am today without those privileges. However, just recognizing that is simply not enough. With this knowledge, I am that much more responsible when I allow myself the benefits these privileges bring.

One privilege I've recently begun to really think about is 'one of the guys' privilege.

There is a very interesting post on Feministing.com asking readers to vote on feminist icons. And they ask the question, do we even want icons? Do they serve a purpose in this vast ocean of information we swim through every day? I sat and really thought about whose picture on the cover of a magazine would instantly relay to me that this is a feminist and a champion of feminism. From Magdalene to Ginsberg, from Sappho to diFranco, from Gentileschi to Kahlo, Cleopatra to Maloney - I have hundreds in mind whose lives advanced gender equality whether they meant to or not.

But today I think it is not icons we need but an iconic event. We need to shift the expectation of inequality; the natural acceptance of less pay, less respect, injustice, poor education, diminishing reproductive freedom, sexism in all its forms. We need to admit that it is both an impossibility and unreasonable request to put this all on a single human being or even a group of people. Yes, it can begin with a small group of people but now we are tilting at a tipping point.

Feminism has reached as far as it can on the shoulders of individuals and now we must, as a collective consciousness, call for all genders, in all its variations of expression, to offer our services to Mother Earth and manifest equality. Our minds must hold full pictures of the world as we want it to be. As we travel, work and simply live ~ we must posit equality in each step, each action, each intention.

more at http://onlinewithzoe.com

One of my recent projects is doing research on why radical feminism from 1967-1975 disintegrated. I know there are some who may disagree and argue that radical feminism held on and morphed into current feminism; however, I counter that around the early 1970's, women became turned on to the issues radical feminists were addressing but didn't want to give up their elevated status in society (or their husbands'). Unfortunately for those radical groups who altered the way we view revolutionary feminist practice and theory like Redstockings, WITCH, New York Radical Feminists, The Feminists, and Cell 16, focus shifted from radical politics and universal sisterhood to a split between 'male' new left groups and cultural (reformist) feminist groups like NOW.

I would like to know from anyone who may know more about this era of feminism what they consider aided in the downfall of radical feminist movement. Or, one could argue that there was no downfall. What are your thoughts?