Academic attainment and feminism?

Swallowedafly

• well I was suggesting that the idea that 'science has done nothing for women' (and presumably we don't need to understand it, would be better off without it, and everything it had enabled...?) which has gone without a peep of disagreement on this thread is just wrong. I don't think it's a very controversial point, I am just bemused by the polite silence around Sakura's assertion that science has no value for women.

As for objective and apolitical, no institution or individual is, but the scientific method is the best we have for getting closer towards a reliable view of the world around us.

I've been following this thread with interest and the recent posts from dittany, saf and sakura, all of which mentioned Dworkin's remarkable focus on real women, real lives got me thinking: is this perhaps where EngLit and radical feminism part company? Because literature is not real women, or real lives. And the bedrock of English Studies depends on critics not treating them as real women, real lives. And, powerful as it is, that's not literary analysis. I'm not talking about authors here, but characters.

Equally though, author's aren't 'real' women, not in the context of EngLIt; no authors, male or female, are. Apologies if I'm patronising anyone here, but Roland Barthe's 'Death of the Author' insists that the birth of the reader can only come about with the Death of the Author. Basically, once a text is written, the author has no claim on it any longer - all the meaning comes from the reader. This is immensely liberating - it puts an end to anyone being able to say 'actually, Shakespeare/Keats/Amis doesn't mean THAT. He means THIS'. All readings are valid as long as it's in the text itself. It puts power in the hands of the reader. It means that we can read patriarchy into texts. (It's also why Sexual Politics can sometimes seem dated: from an 'analysis' point of view, not as an 'important political document' one). But it also means that examining a text as an extension of its author is also eliminated.

Hmmm, I'm not sure this works. Because Dworkin identifies repressive structures, and Daly character types.

As an aside, I checked our standard intro to theory, which all students have to purchase, and Millett is in there.

proles, thanks for posting that, it sounds really fun - shame Edinburgh is so darn far!

Sakura

I suspect I am banging my head against a brick wall, and you will take anything I say as complete BS.

But since no one else has done you the respect of pointing out the gaping hole in your logic and asking you to think again, I'll give it a go.

Simply; If you are going to look at the impacts of something (science) on something else (women) you need to look at both the benefits and the harms. Otherwise you are not looking at the whole picture and you are likely to come to the wrong conclusion.

Science isnt for the benefit of men or women, (although technology and policy can be) it is a system of knowledge that enables us to understand something of the way the way stuff in the universe works.

I am shocked that in this highly educated and erudite debate, someone can write off our whole system of knowledge and no one bats an eyelid.

new publication from current academic feminist working from matrocentric position

she started as an eng lit student iirc from chatting, now prof of women's studies at york (toronto). just look where you could end up, suwoo!

not recommending the book - haven't read it, but pre-ordered as i do like a o'r.

That looks interesting.

That we should go back to Friedan, Millett, Hanische and Firestone in order to read the devlopement of American literary and cultural history (bit flimsy on Butler!)

By strange coincident I've just been looking at an essay on second wave feminism and Butler. From a course taught by a male colleague.

lion - I thought maybe something from 'The Unremembered'? It's a short enough article I could send them away with full copies afterwards (I always wanted a full copy of whatever we'd read in prac crit). What do you think?

Did you have a particular passage in mind, LRD?

I hope so.

beach - I agree education isn't necessary to grasp feminism. But I think there is a need for feminist texts, footnotes and all, to show people that feminism is just as natural in an academic context as in any other. If misogynists get to write books full of footnotes, so do we. Maybe that is too simple?

sakura - Thanks, I was wondering what other feminists would think of it (eg., if you'd think it was disrespectful/inappropriate to take Dworkin's name off her work, even temporarily). I think you're as much an expert in judging that one as anyone else here, since Dworkin herself can't comment any more.

Gosh, lots of X-posts. That was in answer to Bonsoir.

I think it depends on the individual. I have feminist friends who left school with no qualifications and who don't put up with patriarchal bullshit and who are very good at perceiving it, describing it and analysing it. Highly educated women can still be the victims of domestic abuse or rape or other forms of male violence. There would appear to be many highly educated female academics who write in a sexist way and or experience a great deal of sexism in their work environment.

Education in feminist analysis without a doubt does help women to identity and counter sexism. It also helps women to develop a group identity and consciousness. I don't think one needs to be highly educated to understand feminist analysis at all. Feminism is about real life - all women know what real life is because they experience it.

Writing philosophical 'feminist' texts that the reader needs to have a degree to understand all the references therein, is elitist and alienating.

I repeat - feminism belongs to all women. I think education is important but I don't think a lack of it excludes a woman from the political movement that is feminism. No woman has been disadvantaged in their ability to grasp the notion of sexism just because they hadn't read Judith Butler et al.

As I say, I'm not the expert here but LRD that sounds like a really good idea.

Sorry, I'm going to repeat myself because I asked this before and didn't get a response, and I really think this might be a good thing to do:

How do you think it'd be if I took a passage from Dworkin and gave it to students to study in prac. crit. style, with the name/gender/date removed until the end of class? I bet some of them would be really surprised about how different it is from what they 'expect' - do you think that would be a good thing to do? We did it during undergraduate with all sorts of DWM writers so I don't think it would come across as erasing her name, but might interest some people in reading more?

I can't do this immediately as I don't have any teaching this term or next, but I'd like to know if you think it might be interesting or not.