Well I enjoyed this chapter much more than the one on Psychoanalytical feminism. I agree with this perspective more and many points that Multicultural etc. feminists focus on really make sense to me. The flaws they point out in other feminist perspective, primarily liberal feminism, are things that also bug me. Like the "women as sisters" thing, which never really settles well with me. You don't have to like and identify with all women in order to want equality.
Something else the mention here is "female chauvinism" - when one woman or group of women presumes to speak for all women around the world. This particularly happens in the Western world with privileged women - white, middle-class, heterosexual and/or well-educated. As a woman who fits into most of these categories, this particular issue is very relevant to me. The last thing I want is to assume to know anybody else's life story and what it is like to live their life. But one quote really stuck with me when talking about global feminist theory (part of a larger quote from Charlotte Bunch): "For women in industrialized countries, this connectedness [among women activists around the world] must be based in the authenticity of our struggles at home, in our need to learn from others, and in our efforts to understand the global implications of our actions, not in liberal guilt, condescending charity, or the false imposition of our models on others." (pg. 216-217, emphasis mine)
There is much more I could talk about in the chapter, but it is a lot to cover. I think I will leave it at this snippet for now. On a completely different note, I also found what I learned about Postmodern/3rd Wave feminism in class today to be very relevant to me. Personally, I like the idea of ditching the gender binary, even though that is pretty much an impractical idea. If we would stop focusing so much on gender, we could value individuals for their own merit, instead of what model they are supposed to fit into. But maybe that's just me.
-Sara
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Brands of Feminism
This post is going to be centered more on the Goldstein: War and Gender reading than what we discussed in class. What we discussed was really helpful, though! Breaking down the relationship between gender and conflict in to those five perspectives made it a lot easier to see how they interact, rather than attempting to attack the whole concept at once.
But what I really want to pick apart are the three feminist perspectives Goldstein talks about. Much like he says, I had never thought about the various views of feminism before - it was always just FEMINISM and that meant believing women were just as good as men and deserved better than they got. So these perspectives really got me thinking as to what I like to focus on and my own perspective on feminism and gender.
Starting with Liberal Feminism. The very quick summary of what I think Goldstein was saying about liberal feminism is that it focuses on the sexism present in our cultures. (Most) all of the differences between genders are culturally made and women, in fact, are just as capable to go to war, run countries etc. as men are. Now, at first glance I very much agreed with this view. But when Goldstein brought up the common criticism of this perspective I had to pause. This view tends to conform to the masculinized ideal of what makes a person valuable (their physical strength and political power, for example) rather than changing the negative views on traditionally feminine characteristics and roles. Very good point!
On the opposite end of the spectrum there is Difference Feminism. This view seems to emphasize that there are, in fact, differences between men and women (whether they are biological or cultural) and that this is not all bad and should be used to our advantage. The focus here is to validate the characteristics women possess and the roles women traditionally play - rather than insisting women can go outside those roles. I like the idea of bringing value to things like motherhood, emotional knowledge, interpersonal relations, care-taking, and other "womanly" traits. However this set off my "not all women are like that!" response, too.
Lastly, Postmodern Feminism. Which had more of a focus on the fluidity of gender, which I like, and instead used sets of contrasting words to define male and female characteristics, which I didn't like, no matter how accurate it was. I think my main aversion to the typical female characteristics is that I strive to be a very logical person. Possibly because I also am very emotionally-driven, but I also just tend to have a logic-centered world view. So my hackles tend to come up when words like "emotional," "irrational," or "unpredictable" get assigned to my gender (all of which Goldstein uses in this description of postmodern feminism). But that might just be a personal problem.
So what do I think? Well I don't know. But one of the main things that came up for me while reading this is how much I dislike attempts to define MAN and WOMAN separately. I think the more effort spent saying "well women do this when men do this" is more effort spent of dividing people who really don't need to be divided. Now, I understand that a lot of that is necessary, especially when discussing something like gender and conflict. But I don't have to like it!
Okay, I really wish I wasn't so obnoxiously verbose. I apologize for the small novel I have apparently written on this topic. Whoops!
Until the next 10-page essay,
-Sara
Also, fun fact: The book War and Gender is categorized in "Gay and Lesbian > History" on Amazon. Huh... not the point. Not from what I read, anyway.
But what I really want to pick apart are the three feminist perspectives Goldstein talks about. Much like he says, I had never thought about the various views of feminism before - it was always just FEMINISM and that meant believing women were just as good as men and deserved better than they got. So these perspectives really got me thinking as to what I like to focus on and my own perspective on feminism and gender.
Starting with Liberal Feminism. The very quick summary of what I think Goldstein was saying about liberal feminism is that it focuses on the sexism present in our cultures. (Most) all of the differences between genders are culturally made and women, in fact, are just as capable to go to war, run countries etc. as men are. Now, at first glance I very much agreed with this view. But when Goldstein brought up the common criticism of this perspective I had to pause. This view tends to conform to the masculinized ideal of what makes a person valuable (their physical strength and political power, for example) rather than changing the negative views on traditionally feminine characteristics and roles. Very good point!
On the opposite end of the spectrum there is Difference Feminism. This view seems to emphasize that there are, in fact, differences between men and women (whether they are biological or cultural) and that this is not all bad and should be used to our advantage. The focus here is to validate the characteristics women possess and the roles women traditionally play - rather than insisting women can go outside those roles. I like the idea of bringing value to things like motherhood, emotional knowledge, interpersonal relations, care-taking, and other "womanly" traits. However this set off my "not all women are like that!" response, too.
Lastly, Postmodern Feminism. Which had more of a focus on the fluidity of gender, which I like, and instead used sets of contrasting words to define male and female characteristics, which I didn't like, no matter how accurate it was. I think my main aversion to the typical female characteristics is that I strive to be a very logical person. Possibly because I also am very emotionally-driven, but I also just tend to have a logic-centered world view. So my hackles tend to come up when words like "emotional," "irrational," or "unpredictable" get assigned to my gender (all of which Goldstein uses in this description of postmodern feminism). But that might just be a personal problem.
So what do I think? Well I don't know. But one of the main things that came up for me while reading this is how much I dislike attempts to define MAN and WOMAN separately. I think the more effort spent saying "well women do this when men do this" is more effort spent of dividing people who really don't need to be divided. Now, I understand that a lot of that is necessary, especially when discussing something like gender and conflict. But I don't have to like it!
Okay, I really wish I wasn't so obnoxiously verbose. I apologize for the small novel I have apparently written on this topic. Whoops!
Until the next 10-page essay,
-Sara
Also, fun fact: The book War and Gender is categorized in "Gay and Lesbian > History" on Amazon. Huh... not the point. Not from what I read, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)