Academic attainment and feminism?

it is aggravating. THere are quite a few people here who cannot even see the sexism behind their words. Penthe, it's obvious you're trying unlike LRD, but please: devoting a week analyzing that old fraud Freud, instead of concentrating on the fascinating intellectual genius who defined what a patriarchy was and went on to critiqued it.. Kate Millet.

Sorry just realised I xposted with a whole discussion between Penthe and LRD that covers what I was trying to say much more clearly!

Dittany, yes I read Dworkin and Millet at the same time as I was is introduced to post modern and post colonial theory. I am really not suggesting that feminist theory did not critique grand narratives, I am just saying they are not automatically oppositional schools of thought.

As I said many years ago now....it appeared to me then that there were a lot of synergies between the schools of thought which could be used to develop further, which did not seem to be a particularly problematic viewpoint.

In all honesty, I still believe it to be a valid viewpoint and wish I had the time re-read the texts.

Ah, cross-posted. Sounds as if that kind of is the idea - or response, if not attacking (I imagine a fair bit of it is attacking).

The blessed Wikipedia on Theorem.

It can be fun to spend a week attacking something - not sure in this case if that's the idea, but sometimes it works. I gave my lot recently a very old introduction to one of our texts, which was (basically), erm, racist. It was good, because it really got them talking about why that was unacceptable, even though it had been influential criticism in its day. I think lots of students find it hard to challenge secondary criticism, but when they've done it with something very obviously unacceptable, they seem to find it easier to do when the unacceptable features are more insidious. It's a good skill.

Of course, SdB is the grandmother of much of it all, and hence she's there at the beginning of the course. I was just - pedantically, sorry - addressing your remark that Millett and Dworkin pre-date postmodernism.

However, such a comment (mine, I mean), is largely irrelevant, since dating - as we've already discussed!) - is not really the issue.

Again, x-posting.

Sorry, you misunderstand me, or I'm not being clear.

When I say that feminist theory is not so much theory as theorem, I mean that it is not something not-proven, but rather a proven truth (in the way that a mathematical theorem is a problem solved).

Again, x-post - sorry!

He doesn't, as such, get a whole week. It's about the feminist response to, or rejection of, Freudian ideas.

There's also a specific, institutional reason why we look at psychoanalysis that week, but it would out me if I made it any clearer than that!

With regard to Millett and Dworkin needing a week to themselves. In absolute terms, I agree with you. It is impossible to consign any thinker to one week alone. But inasmuch as we are constrained by certain time-limits, I've had to group together certain thinkers to form themes, etc., week-on-week.

However, students will feed back on the course, and if (as I suspect, to be honest), we see a strong preference for certain thinkers, I can rethink how the course looks.

Sorry... that took me a long time to post, so I x-posted with everyone.

Just to be the absolute picture of academic pedantry, dittany , one could argue that postmodernist thought predates Millett and Dworkin rather considerably, in that its forefather is generally held to be Martin Heidegger (in many ways, hardly a stunning pedigree...), and Foucault and Derrida were publishing in the early 60s.

dittany We are going to cover extracts from Mackinnon (alongside Dworkin), so I hope the students will carry over that material to the weeks which discuss Butler and Haraway, in addition to any further contextualisation needed.

And I hope that the student will understand that just because we read something (e.g. Freud) does not mean it is endorsed or lionised, iyswim.

There are also other levers to pull. I can, for instance, set certain elements of assessment on certain texts (e.g. the close reading exercise can be done on the Millett), which will focus their minds in particular directions.

snowmama - there are, of course, postmodernists who consider themselves feminists; and similarly, postmodernists who would argue that their work is political. And I agree with your description of feminism. As I said up-thread, feminist critique seems less like theory, and more like theorem, to me at least...

It does seem a little harsh to answer the question with relevance to points about feminist theory in academia, which is only an issue for those such as Dittany whose academic work is overtly radically feminist. I can think of many feminists and feminist allies, radical or not, whose work is not 9and why not is another interesting question...); and many (especially undergrads) whose work is but whose views are not.

But I have to say that, when I taught, I was always cheered to see students in my class who appeared as 'Ms', not because it made them feminist, but because it suggested some personal understanding of the relationship between individuals and power which was so central to what I would be teaching. There's a lot in the 'critical thought' point for Arts and Humanities at least-individuals angered by and seeking to analyse constuctions of power in their own lives on a daily basis are more likely to have a flair for doing so for other cultures and women?

'Postmodernism' in the abstract (is there such a thing?) might not have any politics or agency, but its exponents surely do, and how could you separate that out from postmodernism itself?

I'm only asking, not sure. I understand what you're saying about sexuality now too, thanks.

A quick one in response, so there is a chance this is goobly gook.

I don't meant that postmodernism does something feminism doesnt, I am saying it is another toolset with which feminism can critique the world. This actually illustrates where I find academia problematic. I find it a very (masculine) oppositional approach, there is little in academia that causes a real paradigm shift (feminism arguably being an exception).. it is all addition, clarification and contradiction from my perspective and so I just don't see acknowleging the uses of one school of thought as dismissing another.

Feminism is not just an academic theory, it is a philosphy, a political movement including grassroots - rooted in acadmic theory. Post modernism is one tool that can be used to support that. I don't see post modernity having any politics or agency behind it.. it is a tool like a knife, I can use it to cut my food or it can be used to stab me.

I have not read much academically since 1994, so proabably can't help with academics, but actually identifiying 'post modernist feminists' is a little beside the point as my argument is that feminists can use post modernist approach within their work (if they so wish). I am pretty sure there is some of this approach in the black british feminist reader, post colonial meets feminist theory and I think, Judy Wajcman both critiques and uses some post modernist thought in 'Techno feminism'. (which is not all about losing gender through technology - but the complete opposite). If geniunely there is no feminist engagement with post modernism then that surprises me.

... incidentally, by female sexuality being created - it was badly worded, I mean it has been completely hidden and obliterated and I don't think we have a way of 'revealing' it right now.. why do I care so much, because if others own all images of our sexuality then we don't and can't have freedom .

On reflection, I must acknowledge that It Is Not About Me, so I apologise for the self-absorption of my last post. There is more at stake, and as I said at the end of that post, I have taken a lot from this thread. Thanks, all.

If I may, I will respond to dittany's remark that "we have a whole list of academic feminists, none of whom want to teach any radical feminism in their classes or if they do, they are going to make damn sure it's clear it happened in 1968 not now and it's over, because "narratives" are so much more than actually defeating the patriarchy or ending male violence against women."

Since it was my course outline which mentioned '68, I assume it is me to whom dittany is alluding.

First off, that is not at all how I meant or intend to teach the course. It is arguably no different to a post-war course titling a week's material as "1948 and the NHS" or "1947 and Indian independence". The NHS doesn't cease to exist or India become a colony of GB once more simply by being associated with a certain date. The date acts as an historical locator; and, moreover, one which can be questioned. The NHS did not spring into being ex nihilo in 1948, nor India suddenly have a hankering for independence in 1947. But these dates are nevertheless important.

I acknowledged your criticism of the dating problem, and said that I would seek to ensure that there would be no such implication of obsolescence. You make a significant point, and one which I have taken on board. To use me as an example as you do above is not fair.

Next, though it may seem like semantics, I do not consider myself an "academic feminist". I am a feminist and an academic, but I do not write original works of feminism, which is, in my opinion, the true definition of an academic feminist and I would scarcely dignify myself with such a title.

I have said nothing about "narratives".

I acknowledged that I have a responsibility to teach more women's writing and thought, hence my construction of the course I detailed. This is obviously one way in which I can "do" something, albeit minor, for feminism in the course of my job and life. What we read and are taught is influential; certainly my undergraduate teaching was formative for me in many ways.

Outside of my teaching proper, I do try to "defeat the patriarchy or end male violence against women", and have on several occasions acted in my role as lecturer/adviser, etc. to do so. It is not fair to assume that simply by virtue of being an academic (and thus, I suppose, not living in the Real World©) I am somehow inevitably and unthinkingly a traitor to more direct feminist action.

Aside from this, may I say that I value very much the input and criticism my course has received on this thread; and I have internalised many of the criticisms of soi-disant academic feminism which this thread has discussed. Thanks, everyone.

hmm, post-colonial theory somewhat, or actually just theories that look at how all the things we've been talking about might intersect.

Well, given someone said upthread their students asked for a course on feminism ... seems so!

Around my area, lots of people seem to be interested in historical-context readings, which might be a backlash against postmodernism, and in looking at readers of texts rather than authors, which is a good way of getting away from the 'dead white male' focus. I like both.