Academic attainment and feminism?

[suwoo]

I have wanted to start this thread all day but have been scared that it is stupid or I will be flamed. I want to ask if people feel there is a correlation between academic attainment and feminist principles. Is that a valid question?
I had no idea that I was a feminist. I knew I had these thoughts and principles but didn't know what they were or the significance of them until we did feminist literary theory this semester- it was like an epiphany and my whole world made sense

Had I not gone to uni at the grand old age of 35, maybe I would never had these revelations.

What do you think? Those of you that identify as a feminist, what level of education do you have?

'In postmodernism everything is relative, everything is conditional'

I may be doing postmodernists a huge disservice as I'm not one, but imo this is certainly how a lot of people in my area would see it, and why it's a problem.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of 'creating' female sexuality - why not just accept female sexuality has been there all along? I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, though. I mean, it sounds very powerful to 'create' something, but it'd maybe be better to say the reason female sexuality isn't visible isn't because it wasn't there, it's because it was deliberately hidden/marginalized. Like in the point someone raised about 'sex' being understood in a very male-centric way, even though the clitoris is not a new body part we've suddenly acquired.

(Disclaimer: yes, that may still make no sense. If so, can you pretend I didn't say anything? )

I think it is already out of fashion, isn't it? I'm probably not the best judge as medievalists are famously not keen on theory in general.

so what is taking its place?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

'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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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).