articles discussing this.

but yes, this is one of my favorite discussions, our behaviors and why. the conditioning. and getting beyond the conditioning. there is a fear of loss, but ultimately, once done there is such a freedom and one realizes that really nothing was lost, all was gained. i agree.

Is that you?

bell hooks coined the phrase white capitalist supremacist patriarchy. She had/has a whole lot to say about feminism as well as race and class,

They all entertwined.

That was very clear from the readings in our colonial Latin America class this past semester. I have not read Bell.

Have much in common.

I'd have to dig out some books, but if you'd like it would be fun.

Can't recall if her core argument has been debunked. I just remember loving that book.

Still, the most influential to me at the time was Feminism Unmodified by Catherine MacKinnon. Refusing to be a man by John Stoltenberg was great too.

Check them out, and add more.

you say the two, i say the merge, but reality is even speaking in anger, when said thru the heart it is still love even in anger. so reality is there are not two, but one, and we have the choice of that being thru love (heart) or hate (ego).

just playin with a fun part of life

I feel as though as long as we honestly discuss the controversy behind some of these theories-- and fully acknowledge the reasons for the criticism-- this can be constructive.

Thoughtful, critical, yet respectful discussion is a good thing, but let's try very hard to keep it on an even plain.

But there are a few things she's written I do like. If a healthy debate could happen instead of an argument, that would be fun.

For instance, while I despise Ayn Rand, there was a thread in which a poster referred to her as 'a feminist', that made me cringe. I didn't involve myself in that thread or that discussion, but I have had interesting discussions about Ayn Rand (not at DU).

She had a hell of a background and the how's and whys of how she come to her philosophy is a worthy discussion, but not so much objectivism itself on a Democratic board especially (IMO). Her views on women well are certainly NOT feminist, although she herself was a women a great strength and influence.

This quote in itself is nausea inducing. I see what she's trying to say, but like everything else she's written, it's disturbing in its implications.

was because ayn rand is pro choice.

However, I have come to find out that being pro choice alone, does not a feminist make.

that's why i don't buy the one liner that feminism is about equal rights for all. It really goes beyond that and it's a state of mind, not just some bullet points of agreement.

She was an elitist for all her "every man for himself" rhetoric. What I take away from her readings are that she could give two shits less for, say empoverished women.


'Equal rights' has become kind of a catch all phase, one of those phrases that can become meaningless because of what's undefined. I like to use the term (especially for reproductive rights) human rights, because at least there is a framework, although far too often women are just 'assumed' to be included, often in some abstract way instead of addressing specific and very real issues of gender inequities, and the great social danage they cause.

That's where feminism comes in and and one of the reasons feminism is so very important. We've insisted on gender specific language in human rights documents whereever we could and its still a fight.

another discussion are the things we do not agree upon.

I may vehemently disagree with another feminist regarding a specific issue. However, that doesn't make one feminist right or the other wrong. Or one a feminist and the other not. it's a disagreement.

However the terms and disagreement are usually respectful, because they are based in some form of understanding of feminism.

But there are many (mostly men, sometimes women) who would like to use those disagreements as a way to define women they disagree with as not a feminist, or divide the movement. It cuts both ways. I just can't stand it when I see it happening.

Like I said before there are really only two things that, at least for me, that are show stoppers and if I consider someone a feminist.

1) they must agree there is a social and cultural built in oppression of women, called the patriarchy..
2) they must be pro choice - that is the epitome of ones agency, and if one is against that, well... you know the drill.

Many other issues that focus on the individual woman and her choices are really personal, where my two examples are of the whole. I think feminism has focused to much on the personal and not the whole, but that's a whole other discussion.

at what point will we women not fall for that tool of pittin' one woman against another. we really do not see that in the male gender.

what i see is there can be those disagreements but i find even in that, the divide is not so wide. is is more a level. where one may be opposed to say porn, the others will all be opposed to the harm in objectifying our women. so, we may even see the same harm, but not take it as far as another.

i just really do not see flat out disagreement in any of the issues.

of harm... But there is more than likely a foundation that most agree on.

and a time when the men accomplish and the women admire and reap the reward ergo, respect (worship). interesting.

I abhor objectivism, but Rand and her life are kind of fascinating. She would despise modern feminism. I think she would relate more to MRA's.

look it up.

Gender, as opposed to sex, is performed and must constantly be recreated through performance in conformity with that gender norm. So, by implication, someone who is male physically, but feminine mentally will reproduce a feminine gender through performance.

I know she touches on drag performances as an illustrative example and mentions that because of reassignment surgery that sex may not be as static of a category as previously thought.