Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Sep '17 22:26
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    I'm not yet impressed.

    I have lately been reading Angela Davis - "If They Come in the Morning ..." - as my posts about the US prison system will have indicated. I think that was published in 1971 and frankly, if you can find anything significant in the Third Wave that was not said by Angela Davis and her associates in the late Sixites then I will be ...[text shortened]... inst change and progress. They are fighting against reaction and diversion and misappropriation.
    Finnegan, *if* you really believe that feminist thought came to an end around 1971 with
    Angela Davis and that no one ever since has come up with anything worthwhile to add
    or to criticize, then I don't know what to say or how to help you open your mind.
    Perhaps your local university's women's studies department could suggest further reading.

    As a historian, I have to say that history's in the business of 'revisionism'.
    I recently learned new facts (due to the opening of some Russian archives) about the
    Great Patriotic War that are opposed to what I had learned as a young student.

    "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."
    --Albert Einstein
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Sep '17 22:47
    Originally posted by @vivify to Wajoma
    I doubt most trans people make such a life-altering decision on a "whim".

    Just like there are many variations in sexuality (ranging from hetero, bi, gay and asexual), there are also people born with variations between male and female.

    For example, aside from XX and XY chromosomes, some women can be born with a Y chromosome, and some men c ...[text shortened]... cal reasons, identifying as the opposite sex they were born as is natural for many trans people.
    "Gender is a lot more complex than a "whim", and for many trans people, it doesn't feel like a choice."
    --Vivify

    A transgender woman (who made her transition late in life) put it like this:
    "I have always been a woman. Now I am letting the world see it more too."

    "For biological reasons, identifying as the opposite sex they were born as is natural for many trans people."
    --Vivify

    'Opposite sex' implies there must be a gender binary, and it unnecessarily emphasizes the antagonism.
    I would prefer that 'other sex' be used instead of 'opposite sex'.
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Sep '17 22:552 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Finnegan, *if* you really believe that feminist thought came to an end around 1971 with
    Angela Davis and that no one ever since has come up with anything worthwhile to add
    or to criticize, then I don't know what to say or how to help you open your mind.
    Perhaps your local university's women's studies department could suggest further reading.

    As a h ...[text shortened]... r today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."
    --Albert Einstein
    No I don't believe feminism stopped growing in 1971 but I do believe many self styled feminists would do well to learn their own history and stop patronising those who have been engaged with the issues since before they were born.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Sep '17 22:571 edit
    Originally posted by @shavixmir to Vivify
    I got into an awful fight over this with my wife (well, hostage...).

    I say: is it biological to want to remove your leg, because it doesn't feel like it belongs to you (an existent psychological condition)? And why is removing your penis any different?

    Just to be fair here: my wife doesn't have a penis; which made her anger all the more ho ...[text shortened]... playing up again.

    Really. It could result in an unexpected sex change whilst you're sleeping.
    RHP (stupidly) insists upon censoring a common clinical term in this post.
    So I shall not quote any sentences with it.

    "And why is removing your p**** any different?
    --Shavixmir (to Vivify)

    The absence of genitals does not make all the difference in gender identity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    "David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man assigned male
    at birth but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice and intervention
    after his p*** was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy."

    Losing that part did not make him into a girl; it just made him a boy without that part.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Sep '17 23:112 edits
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    No I don't believe feminism stopped growing in 1971 but I do believe many self styled feminists would do well to learn their own history and stop patronising those who have been engaged with the issues since before they were born.

    My local women's studies department and sociology teaching machine is sitting at the same table with me as I type which cuts a lot of the effort out of this for me.
    As a historian, of course, I emphasize the importance of learning history.
    That said, since 1971 there have been major new developments in many fields related
    to feminism. I would submit that pre-1971 books and articles about transgender people,
    for instance, while useful for historical context, don't seem very insightful by modern standards.

    For decades, American politicians liked to use routine expressions like "Americans of
    *all* races, *both* white and black." In recent years, more American politicians have
    begun amending that to "Americans of *all* races, white, black and brown."
    Perhaps eventually more American politicians and journalists will wake up and acknowledge
    that the USA's population is more diverse than that and the people who are being left out
    resent being typically ignored and marginalized.

    My point is that it's no longer acceptable to frame all discussions in the terms of older generations.

    "I do believe many self styled feminists would do well to learn their own history and stop
    patronising those who have been engaged with the issues since before they were born."
    --Finnegan

    That could have been said as emphatically by older American historians, who for many
    years have produced 'whitewashed' histories about the US Civil War, sanitizing the issues
    of slavery, to younger American historians who dared to challenge their CSA apologist framing.
  6. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Sep '17 00:123 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    As a historian, of course, I emphasize the importance of learning history.
    That said, since 1971 there have been major new developments in many fields related
    to feminism. I would submit that pre-1971 books and articles about transgender people,
    for instance, while useful for historical context, don't seem very insightful by modern standards.

    For ...[text shortened]...
    of slavery, to younger American historians who dared to challenge their CSA apologist framing.
    You are too good a historian to tolerate such plain nonsense as this:

    ... "The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce, as well as the end of legal sex discrimination..." Rebecca Walker coined the term "Third Wave" to highlight the focus on queer and non-white women."

    In "Hidden from History", Sheila Rowbotham examined British women's history from the 17th century to 1930 from a Marxist viewpoint. There was plenty of material for her book and there is far more that should be added in. It seems women are still hidden from history - in fact, from feminist history!! In "Seizing Freedom: Slave Emancipation and Liberty for All", David R. Roediger discusses at length the diverse strands of women's political activism in and around the American Civil War, with specific attention to racism in the women's movement.

    There was a women's movement before there was a campaign for women to vote. Women argued over their priorities and not all agreed that the vote should be their first aim. Women played a significant role for example in the early trade union movement, in the USA as well as in Europe. Women were also active in a whole range of political issues, including revolutionary politics outside the narrow Anglo-Saxon world of Britain and the USA.

    The idea that I am trying to frame all discussions in terms of older generations is not a valid criticism, when my complaint is that ignorance of history is a major defect in the current debate.

    I am perfectly aware of white racism generally and among women. Alongside white racism has been a continuous and unbroken strand of anti-racism. For that matter, have you not noticed that the history of politically active Black women is sort of not mentioned when saying feminism was not aware of racism before the Third Wave? The Third Wave seems to be itself a White feminist concept that writes Black feminists out of the story - writes Angela Davis out for example - and I know who Rebecca Walker is by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Walker

    I resent the insinuation that the discovery of racism is a quality of the new generation and that older activists can be patronised with a sweeping assumption that they / we lacked the sophistry and political awareness of the new kids on the block. What stunning arrogance. Far from representing an advance, much of current culture is reactionary and a serious loss of ground. A generation that identifies Beyoncé as a feminist icon and Hillary Clinton as a feminist politician is not winning the war - it's waving the white flag of surrender.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    24 Sep '17 09:281 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    You need to work out more clearly the nature of your categories.

    All feminists are women. Not all women are feminists. Some civil rights activists are women. Some feminists are racists. Some men are civil rights activists. Some men support feminists. Some men share feminist values. No men are women. All men are entitled to have opinions including ...[text shortened]... women share their thoughts and views with other women. Some feminists hate men but most don't.
    "All feminists are women. "
    do i have to get you the definition of feminism from a dictionary? or the dictionary too is a sexist construct?


    feminism is the idea that women deserve equal rights, equal opportunity. That is an idea men must, not could or should, get behind it. All must be feminists.

    If you want to reply to this to reiterate how feminism is a female only club, don't bother. It's not true and it's even pretty dumb.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Sep '17 20:281 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    You are too good a historian to tolerate such plain nonsense as this:

    [i] ... "The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce, as well as the end of legal sex discrimination..." Rebecca Walker coined the term "Third Wave" to highl ...[text shortened]... inton as a feminist politician is not winning the war - it's waving the white flag of surrender.
    I am aware that Wikipedia articles have many oversimplifications and factual errors.
    Indeed, I criticized the Wikipedia article on 'white feminism' for being edited recently
    to become more illiterate and make a less coherent definition of 'white feminism'.
    I lack the time, however, to become an unpaid full-time editor of Wikipedia articles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Sheridan

    "The author Robert Service claimed, in 2009, that there was an affair between Sheridan and Trotsky."

    As far as I know, that's wrong. I read Robert Service's biography of Trotsky (the cited source)
    and found no evidence that he claimed that Trotsky had an affair with Clare Sheridan.
    He wrote that Trotsky and Sheridan were fond of each other and *might* have had an affair.
    (Whenever a man and a woman are fond of each other, must they sleep together too?)
    When I mentioned this earlier at RHP, Teinosuke (an academic) implored me to edit the
    Wikipedia article to correct this factual error.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Sep '17 20:51
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    You are too good a historian to tolerate such plain nonsense as this:

    [i] ... "The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce, as well as the end of legal sex discrimination..." Rebecca Walker coined the term "Third Wave" to highl ...[text shortened]... inton as a feminist politician is not winning the war - it's waving the white flag of surrender.
    This may be a better Wikipedia article on feminist history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

    "Women were also active in a whole range of political issues, including revolutionary
    politics outside the narrow Anglo-Saxon world of Britain and the USA."
    --Finnegan

    I am well aware of women such as Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg

    "Rosa Luxemburg ... was a German-Polish Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist,
    anti-war activist, and revolutionary socialist of Polish-Jewish descent who became a
    naturalized German citizen. She was, successively, a member of the Social Democracy
    of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL), the Social Democratic Party of
    Germany (SPD), the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), and the Communist
    Party of Germany (KPD)."

    "I am perfectly aware of white racism generally and among women."
    --Finnegan

    Some 'liberal' white Americans here have disputed my position that racism could exist
    in mainstream American feminists organizations, which are dominated by white women.

    "...when saying feminism was not aware of racism before the Third Wave?"
    --Finnegan

    I never wrote that. As far as I know, no one else has claimed that pre-Third Wave
    feminism was completely ignorant of racism. It seems to me that the point being made
    was that Third Wave feminism pays more attention to issues such as racism.

    "I resent the insinuation that the discovery of racism is a quality of the new generation..."
    --Finnegan

    I don't know of Third Wave feminists who claim that they were the first feminists to 'discover' racism.

    "Older activists can be patronised with a sweeping assumption that they / we lacked
    the sophistry and political awareness of the new kids on the block."
    --Finnegan

    Judith Butler, for instance, who's associated with Third Wave feminism, was born in 1956.
    My point is that some Third Wave feminists may be older than you apparently assume.

    "A generation that identifies Beyoncé as a feminist icon ..."
    --Finnegan

    As a scholar, I am as averse as anyone could be toward people who have a detailed
    knowledge of American pop culture and about complete ignorance of academic history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-wave_feminism

    "Fourth-wave feminism is often associated with online feminism, especially using Facebook,
    Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Tumblr, and other forms of social media to discuss, uplift,
    and activate gender equality and social justice."

    "One criticism of fourth-wave feminism is a perceived dependence on technology.
    As Ragna Rök Jóns argues in Bluestockings Magazine, "The key problem that this
    '4th Wave' will face will be the disproportionate access to and ownership of digital
    media devices." The fourth wave is then left with the "inherent classism and ableism"
    created by giving the biggest voice to those who can afford and use technology."

    I concur with this criticism of Fourth Wave feminism (which seems too fuzzily defined).
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Sep '17 02:093 edits
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of white women while failing to
    address the distinct forms of oppression often faced by women of colour and women lacking other privileges."

    More white women voted for Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Cllinton in 2016.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/white-women-husbands-voting

    "Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands
    Conventional wisdom says women will show solidarity at the polls.
    But new research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood."
    --Lucia Graves

    "Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it.
    And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to [Hillary] Clinton – white,
    heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her."

    "Among white women in particular, she fared even worse: a slim majority voted for Trump."

    "The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to
    cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf
    of their husbands and families (the study was based on a poll of straight women
    conducted in 2012, before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, and draws no
    conclusions about marriages where neither partner is a man).

    That could help explain why, despite the fact that the Democratic party is generally considered to
    have policies more favorable to women, Republicans have traditionally won the votes of married women.
    “Just being married makes women more conservative in their vote choice,” said Kretschmer.
    The bottom line is quite literally economic, rather than ideological.

    “Women consistently earn less money and hold less power, which fosters women’s economic
    dependency on men,” Kretschmer and her co-authors write in their study. “Thus, it is within married
    women’s interests to support policies and politicians who protect their husbands and improve their status.”"

    "“Racial groups have really strong collective identity bonds, so it wasn’t surprising that when
    hey had a black candidate to vote for, they experienced really high turnout,” said Kretschmer.
    “For women, one of the interesting things is they consistently lack social identity bonds.”
    False assumptions that women will vote as a unified bloc go back to the earliest days of
    the women’s suffrage movement."

    It's absurd to expect wealthy white women to identify more closely with poor non-white
    women than with wealthy white men, who are likely their husbands, fathers, and brothers.

    During O.J. Simpson's murder trial, prosecutor Marcia Clark (a white woman) was overconfident
    that she could persuade the jury's poor black women to identify more closely with a rich
    white woman, Nicole Brown Simpson (a murder victim), or herself than with O.J. Simpson,
    a rich black man (who up until then had been widely accepted by white corporate America).
    She discovered that women often don't identify that closely with other women just for being women.
Back to Top