Am I 'good enough' to post in this topic?

[KickAssAngel]

Following on from another discussion - there appears to be a bit of a fear about not knowing enough to post over here.

So - what makes this section different from FWR chat? Do people get the impression that they need to be some kind of 'expert' in order to post in this section? What would make a person 'qualified' to post over here?

That's probably enough questions for now. Anyone got any thoughts?

Yeah I know, and whenever I've mentioned the issue elsewhere on mn everyone has been really supportive, I think when I posted I just wanted I different eye on it iyswim. Thank you

So do we even want separate sections? Or are we happy with having barely used areas?

And I do sometimes wonder if there is a place where we should have some basics of feminism, such as how trolls derail threads, etc. I'm thinking a bit like the acronyms page, something we can just point people to.

Chat, activism and books (not just book club) would work for me. MNHQ are planning a board cull (London 2012 and swine flu are for the chop, I think!) so now is the time tonreview

Moz I saw your thread but didn't reply as I didn't think I had much to say that would be helpful.

Bertie and Callin gave good replies but it does rather emphasise the pointlessness of having a board called "Feminist Support" if very little support is given.

Buffy didn't say the last line of your post, which you put in quote marks as if you were quoting her, Lass

No, she didn't. I was paraphrasing. I'm not sure what the point is if you want to make feminism accessible and interesting in using academic language or professional language.

When I post on legal issues I use ordinary terms and avoid using terms which I would use in a professional context.

Oh blast , sorry Moz I got your thread muddled with the other one I highlighted.

Sorry, thank you for getting back to me people I really really appreciate it

but wasn't Buffy just trying to make a point - that if we have a 'theory' section, it kind of implies the use of academic language, and referencing people like Haraway, Butler etc.

So - do we want a section for that style of discussion, as if we're in an academic setting discussing some of the big-hitters of fem. theory? or will we always sound super poncy no matter what the heading given for the topic?

The trouble is that there are always people who want to push feminism out of the mainstream as possible. Mention something feminist on chat, for example and people say "Haven't we got feminism boards for stuff like that?" Mention a book or a study or a paper or use long words on feminist chat and people go on about feminism being poncy and middle class and sneering and off putting to ordinary women........

I never go on the religion/philosophy boards, but I imagine that there's a similar divide between 'everyday' philosophy and the kind of serious philosophical pontifications that academics would have.

As someone who's read a fair bit of the 'big hitters' in fem. theory (because I had to) then there are times I'd like to have a discussion about some things in that context. e.g. a lot of the debates about transexuals would be very different if we discussed them according to fem. theory rather than people's RL experiences. Both are equally valid, imo.

However, I'm willing to accept that out of the millions of people who log onto MN I'm possibly the only person who would enjoy the more academic theoretical discussion.

This board came about out of the MN/FWR war when folks were saying that there was too much theory on the only FWR board of the time and that was one of the things that stopped them posting.

This aligns with my recollection of why the separate theory section was created. I had only just discovered MN (I'm American) by googling a feminism topic for a work project and FWR came up. I think at the time it was just the one topic. But then there were a spate of threads in several places on MN of posters complaining that FWR was too theoretical and so the theory section was created. Then there were a spate of threads of people complaining about the separation. Then everything settled down and everyone just ignored the separate topic and continued to post in FWR chat on all manner of feminist subjects, including theory.

There's no "legal theory" and "legal chat" separation though, Lass. And your "paraphrase" was inaccurate; Buffy simply used the word, the rest is your leap into the dark.

Anyhoo, i see you've posted on the site stuff thread re the number of boards. I've done similar re message to MN.

I'm going to start a poll in Feminism Chat (!) as to which of the boards people would like to keep.

There are some words/phrases which are explicit to fem theory. If I was just chatting, I probably wouldn't use them. But if I were having a theoretical discussion then those words carry certain meanings with them. So, ideally, a thread in fem theory would be a signifier that we're having a more academic discussion, whereas a thread on the same topic in fem chat would be more about everyone just putting in their ideas.

A bit like the difference between writing an academic paper or emailing a friend.

But I frequently suspect that I'm about the only person who has any interest in the more academic approach. Until now I've been able to have those discussions at college, but I've finished at college now so I don't have an outlet for my nerdiness any more.

fwiw - it was these boards which got me applying for my degree. I'd gone to an open day to look at doing an MA in education. Then I saw the WGST course, and thought 'why not' so I signed up right there, having never studied a feminist theory book at all.

Please post on my poll!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2767416-Poll-which-boards-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-Feminism-topic?msgid=64551343#64551343

'But I frequently suspect that I'm about the only person who has any interest in the more academic approach."

I am. I love it when I don't understand things and have to read more........

I just wonder if there's about 5 of us who would end up feeling slightly embarrassed with nothing much left to say.

I don't have a particularly strong preference for whether feminism should have subdivisions, but I'm inclined to think it could be useful to keep Theory as a place where someone can post with the expectation that people will be willing to look up a term for themselves if they aren't familiar with it (though query for exact meaning in specific context may sometimes be appropriate), be arsed to read a link if one is provided rather than expect to be spoonfed, and on which people who CBA to do that or who deliberately try to subvert the thread are invited to start their own under chat and then as far as possible ignored.

Now - I did not know that Butler got that from someone else. I quoted that very bit in my final paper, because I wrote a short story which includes a father telling his daughter to get out of the house, and then wrote all about how him saying it became him doing it because he gave voice to the instruction, which then turned the underlying power he had into an event. Proper citations and everything, but never knew it came from elsewhere first.