Feminist theory section

Even just glancing at this thread makes me remember why lots of groups come unstuck as they end up talking about the group or who is in it or what they will talk about rather than talking about anything stubstantial and then acting on it.

I've seen similar spats in pretty much all activist groups I've been involved in, certainly not limited to feminism/women's groups.

Oh I agree - I think Life of Brian lampooned it all very well :)

Its just that some of these Feminist inter-group spats are decades old and still going strong, which is a pity.

To be honest, whatmeworry, I'm not even sure its that. I've seen similar spats in pretty much all activist groups I've been involved in, certainly not limited to feminism/women's groups.

I think its just par for the course with issues where people are so passionately involved, you then get personality clashes & it all goes pearshaped. Being on the web makes it even harder for others to knock heads together & say 'sod it, lets just go to the pub' before it all goes really bad

Analysis in Politics would be like using common sense in Relationships. End of Board :o

I think the truth is there are some major schisms between the various schools of Feminism, and the acrimony between them goes back many decades and does get reflected on MN.

"I think the Politics section could also do with a little more analysis and a lot less opinionated shouting"

three cheers for that, fedup

Yes but the personal is political is it not? My politics are very personal. No off-the-shelf ideology for me thank you very much. I have no idea what problems you are referring to, or other threads, apart from the regular porn debates that usually end up in a slightly disturbing stand-off.

I understand what you mean, I think the Politics section could also do with a little more analysis and a lot less opinionated shouting.

Perhaps the term 'theory' should be replaced with 'analysis'. Theory seems disconnected but analysis is personal yet intelligent?

well said pubes

I think the point of the theory section is that we can discuss feminist ideas and analyse stuff from a feminist point of view without people taking it too personally.

Feminism is political but because it deals with the relationship between men and women, feminist theory sometimes analyses things that are at the heart of people's personal lives and that can be painful and provoke an immediately defensive reaction. It's important to get past that personal reaction if we want to talk about women as a group - i.e. if we want feminism to be a political force. I think posting in 'theory' is a way of saying, 'I'm talking about women as a group here and not having a pop at anybody's individual choices'

That's my take on it, anyway. The thread where the new sections were decided was very fast moving with lots of distractions. I hope it takes off and doesn't feel exlusionary.

I regret saying that I think. Yes, it feels uncomfortable posting "theory" in a separate section, but i guess it has all come about as an attempt to put right some problems, so if it works it is a good thing.

I think it's grandiose and exclusionary a oaty said earlier, but that's because I don't know much about it and wouldn't be able to join in the discussion - so I'm out.

Those posts deserve an applause emoticon, OatyBeatie.

Namechangeguy,I'd just add that those threads didn't take place in a feminist vacuum hermetically sealed from any and all interference, including, but not limited to, the patriarchy

Sorry to double post, I just wanted to ask, in relation to your post, namechangeguy, is there in fact any widespread belief within feminism that women will always/usually display harmony in the absence of interference "from the patriarchy"? I would have thought that would be a minority view but I don't know enough (or any really) feminist theory to know if that is the case.

After all, plenty of feminist thought allows for the existence of fundamental conflict between women, by giving irreducible reality to conflicts of race or economic class for example. And also, to imply the necessity of solidarity between women implies that you can state a very pervasive communality just on the basis of gender -- which seems to reduce a woman's identity to being wholly a matter of her gender, instead of allowing that women as much as men are diverse and capable of being understood in terms of individual characteristics. (A bit like in a crap TV drama where you have four or five male leads all displaying some male "type" and just one woman, who is only allowed to display the type "woman".)

I think a lot of it is just internet dynamics. There is something very distinctive about discourse within a written community.

In an oral conversation, there are lots and lots of nuances that aid a mutual acceptance of the fact that each of our utterances is only an approximation of what we think, and that our statements will evolve as we refine our ability to communicate the ideas that we have (as well as evolving in response to the contributions of others in the conversation). So we aren't routinely and relentlessly held to account for our former, superceded contributions.

In a written community, what we lose in nuance we "gain" in the existence of a complete written record of all of our superceded conversations. So we feel kind of shackled to these: we feel held to account for them, we feel defensive in relation to them, we feel the temptation to exploit others' earlier poor approximations to the spirit of what they were trying to convey.

And then discourse becomes exegesis. It is no longer about the subject matter directly, it is instead about the texts that constitute the body of ossified former thought. In this respect the internet is weirdly like, say, medieval scholasticism: we circle around former writings that become obsessed over like sacred texts just in virtue of never disappearing from view.

So, much more to do with a general pathology of internet convo than with feminism as such.

Do any feminist theories explain recent events on here? How could a group of educated, well-read and civilised women, without any patriarchal interference, fall out so badly when they would appear to have broadly common goals? Would it suggest that conflict between human beings is inevitable, regardless of gender?

Aw, but then your play would lack dramatic tension, Hully. You have to admit that 'will the patriarchy crumble and was Gandhi really a bastard?' has much more potential than 'women on the edge of PARD induced harmony'. And that's before you get to the tomato wreathed finale.

Well the chat thing doesn't look like it's exactly working out as a calm and measured place does it?

making clear that a critique of a practise isn't the same as a critique of the person performing it.

This is what I'm hoping for. I'm trying to take a break at the moment (fail!) but will be back next week. Probably quite a few are doing the same.

Me too Hester.
The snarky remarks make me think of malicious gleeful little imps.

I hope the regs come back when the dust settles.

I have always enjoyed their analysis & knowledge. I hope the division between chat and theory will work as intended - as in making clear that a critique of a practise isn't the same as a critique of the person performing it.

I'd hate to end up just as a place for pleasant little chats, though I'm glad we have a place for them too as sometimes it's nice to muse rather than debate.

Sex Negative Feminists - RIP PIV VIP OMG!

Perhaps we need some more cock puns to keep things sweet.

The only one I could think of was:

Utilitarian Feminism: seeks the greatest (ha) penis of the greatest number.