tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post8697643484119744622..comments2024-03-04T15:58:36.694+00:00Comments on Versatile Identities: Defining Feminism: A Riposte to Some Dude on the InternetHelenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787708792184032639noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-4504517587738807402011-05-02T03:36:14.872+01:002011-05-02T03:36:14.872+01:00Having read what I've just written, I've c...Having read what I've just written, I've come to the conclusion that it sounds too much like I'm talking out of my arse, so I won't post it here until I've found a way to make it sound a little less stupid.Axtracthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716521850343895888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-36723730026415536182011-05-02T03:03:30.155+01:002011-05-02T03:03:30.155+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Axtracthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716521850343895888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-44198214283890716232011-04-27T00:51:47.235+01:002011-04-27T00:51:47.235+01:00You don't understand me correctly. Framing the...You don't understand me correctly. Framing the cursory explanation of my naive impressions as to what the feminist movement itself is and has been was a small part of the article - the argument itself had nothing to do with feminism ITSELF. You take far too many liberties in supposing that contributory elements supporting an argument define the argument - this is what makes it so easy to read everything out of context, and ascribe meaning that simply isn't there.<br /><br />If I'd been writing about violence against women, then violence against women would have taken a much more central role in the text, and other examples may have shown up relating to the topic of violence against women. Similarly, since I was talking about the everyday experience of common gender-issues, the context in which I mention violence is not meant to directly address violence at all.<br /><br />Furthermore, I do not attempt to come to any clear conclusions - so I suppose talking about the entire article as an "argument" was folly to begin with (sorry!) The point was to encourage more careful consideration of terms and the relationships between ideas, not to persuade anyone into accepting any particular ideas themselves.<br /><br />You're welcome to read it as carelessly as you'd like - but reading things into it that aren't stated IS inappropriate. I've heard of a legal maxim that an inclusive statement is also an exclusive one - that defining something as including something indicates the exclusion of other things. While this is important in legal definitions/discussions, it is not applicable to writing which does not attempt to present an independent, solidified definition - it seems as though you're a little too quick to assume that my inclusion of some ideas indicates the exclusion of others... Were I attempting to provide an exhaustive discussion of feminism OR etymology, it would've been far longer, and quite a bit dryer...<br /><br />I don't feel it takes a great deal of work to read words in the context they've been put into - though there may be a certain trick to overcoming whatever preconceived context one brings to it in the first place - taking excerpts out of a thing and examining them independently of the original work and in a context foreign to the work itself suggests an unwillingness to treat the thing for what it is, and (while flattering) the attribution of far greater significance than the work really called for.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07093273555083877114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-80194258455498256522011-04-26T23:49:27.879+01:002011-04-26T23:49:27.879+01:00If I understand you correctly, you're saying t...If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because you're writing from your own personal, naive, uneducated-in-the-ways-of-gender-relations experience, you have no obligation to make your argument actually bear any relation to the reality of our society and the gender relations therein. If that's the case, I can't help but wonder why you would want to address this topic at all.<br /><br />I mean, you argue that I take everything horribly out of context, when what I'm actually doing is putting it in the context of reality. If you want to have a conversation about feminism that has nothing to do with what's going on in the world outside your mind, maybe you should just have that conversation inside your mind.<br /><br />You clearly didn't set out to write about violence against women, but you did write about violence against women, and I addressed that accordingly, using real-world examples. There's nothing inappropriate about that - what's inappropriate is that you thought it was fine to talk about hitting women as if it were a remote, imaginary phenomenon, unconnected to the reality of our society.<br /><br />The other major issue I have with your defence is that you're trying to cover up your lack of clear, concise, conclusive argument by claiming that I'm not reading carefully enough. If you really think my conclusion can easily be reached from your argument, then you have failed to communicate what you intended to communicate, because I can't draw a line between the two. <br /><br />I mean, when you state "feminism seems to do xyz" and then say that you OBVIOUSLY didn't mean that feminism ACTUALLY does xyz, that's just poor writing, not a failure of the reader to examine the context to unearth the real meaning.<br /><br />I never thought your position was mean-spirited, but I do think you need to set out your argument more clearly if you want to avoid similar reactions in the future. You can only expect your reader - even an intelligent, perceptive reader - to do so much of the work.Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15787708792184032639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-16851083844226732202011-04-26T22:16:01.132+01:002011-04-26T22:16:01.132+01:00(to follow up)
Of course, all of the factual info...(to follow up)<br /><br />Of course, all of the factual information provided here seems reasonable and accurate - the fact that we haven't yet reached a position of gender-equality in society is as disheartening as it is true.<br /><br />The statement:<br /><br />"A better definition of feminism than "the promotion of gender equality" might be "the promotion of gender equality through the uplifting of women", because that is correct on both levels - it allows for what the author sees as a "bias" in favour of women, while acknowledging that this "bias" is actually what is needed for equality to be achieved."<br /><br />is not only appropriate, but was also suggested in the piece of writing being responded to.<br /><br />When I read "The Handmaid's Tale" in school, there was some talk among ignorant males suggesting that Margaret Atwood might be a misandrist - which seems, to me, even more inappropriate a response as suggesting that feminism is antonymical to misogyny.<br /><br />The subjugation of women has been an abhorrent social convention, and an unbiased perspective on individuals *regardless* of gender, (and then allowing for the respectful appreciation of inescapable gender-differences ;) calls for a view naturally unbiased in the individual, not dictated and blindly accepted.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07093273555083877114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368806848708615239.post-22634470494022560592011-04-26T21:59:29.629+01:002011-04-26T21:59:29.629+01:00Firstly, excerpting
"...in recent history th...Firstly, excerpting<br /><br />"...in recent history the balance was shifted to one of equality by way of the “feminist movement.""<br /><br />out of the context of<br /><br />"Most of what I understood of “feminism” growing up was that..."<br /><br />further contextualized right after with<br /><br />"This was, of course, the impression gleaned from living among adult men and women, and not from historical or sociological study..."<br /><br />is misleading. It was important to properly contextualize the naive impressions of youth which form the basis for the local trends and personal experiences (NOT the actual thrust and spirit of feminism itself) that the piece concerns itself with.<br /><br />Secondly, my statement,<br /><br />"...it is not correct to promote femininity over masculinity in the name of equality – and that does seem to be what feminism does..."<br /><br />may have been too poorly contextualized to be clear on its own - it described what feminism *seems* to do, in the incidental experience of the author - the fact that the actual feminist movement and its historical/sociological significance is NOT under discussion is already stated. Naturally, taking such a statement to mean that the author believes that "feminism" itself seeks to undermine masculinity is an understandable mistake, if preceding context-building statements are ignored.<br /><br />Thirdly, taking a brief look at "the -ism of femininity" and distorting the etymological reasoning by referring to the origins of a word that itself has evolved is ludicrous. Fascism may be called the -ism of "the authority of the civic magistrate" - but not the -ism of the symbol. Don't be silly!<br /><br />And of course, treating an explanation of the reasons I might hesitate to defend myself against a woman as though it were a discussion of domestic violence as a whole, or Police response to domestic violence, is taking things pretty far out of context too. You're not reading between the lines, you're writing between them, and failing to read what is written AS it is written.<br /><br />I would suggest that the reason your excerpts are as selective as they are is because you failed to follow the thrust of the article - the quotes that close it are in keeping with the article's *actual* argument that one does better to understand than to mouth off.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07093273555083877114noreply@blogger.com