Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

samknox · January 7th, 2005 12:33 PM

...consider it a work of scholarship.

In plain language, the bargain between men and women is that men get to do the exciting but dangerous stuff, while women get to do the safe but boring stuff.

It isn't at all clear to me who got the better end of the deal.

Sam

theda · January 7th, 2005 12:50 PM

samknox wrote:

...consider it a work of scholarship.
In plain language, the bargain between men and women is that men get to do the exciting but dangerous stuff, while women get to do the safe but boring stuff.
It isn't at all clear to me who got the better end of the deal.
Sam

I really hope your being sarcastic.
And how can you not consider Faludi's book a piece of scholarship? The amount of research that went into that book was phenomenal, her evidence is overpowering. I'm really disapointed that you think there should be such a division as men doing "exciting but dangerous" stuff and women doing "safe but boring stuff". Thats really insulting. Being a website with a feminist slant I hoped that the sponsors on the site would be more open minded. However, it's comments like these that encourge me to continue breaking the mould of what women are "supposed" to be doing. So perhaps I should thank you for the inspiration.

samknox · January 8th, 2005 02:26 AM

theda wrote:

I really hope your being sarcastic.
And how can you not consider Faludi's book a piece of scholarship? The amount of research that went into that book was phenomenal, her evidence is overpowering. I'm really disapointed that you think there should be such a division as men doing "exciting but dangerous" stuff and women doing "safe but boring stuff". Thats really insulting. Being a website with a feminist slant I hoped that the sponsors on the site would be more open minded. However, it's comments like these that encourge me to continue breaking the mould of what women are "supposed" to be doing. So perhaps I should thank you for the inspiration.

There's no such thing as "feminist scholarship".

I have no opinion about what women "should" do, but I think it's ironic that feminism so often amounts to little more than a pathetic adoration of everything male.

wantingscott · January 8th, 2005 03:59 AM

samknox wrote:

There's no such thing as "feminist scholarship".
I have no opinion about what women "should" do, but I think it's ironic that feminism so often amounts to little more than a pathetic adoration of everything male.

dude,
you are an ass. and i'm guessing single as well. but i can picture it: you come to ISM for a good wank & see all the pretty girls, but then are so FRIGHTENED by the idea that women may be smarter than you.
rebut arguement, please. i can't wait.
wscott

samknox · January 8th, 2005 05:30 AM

wantingscott wrote:

dude,
you are an ass. and i'm guessing single as well. but i can picture it: you come to ISM for a good wank & see all the pretty girls, but then are so FRIGHTENED by the idea that women may be smarter than you.
rebut arguement, please. i can't wait.
wscott

I'd be glad to rebut any rational argument you care to make, if and when you make one.

Do you think that, as a woman, Theda is too weak to defend her position? Is that why you have to come to the rescue of the "damsel in distress"?

liz · January 8th, 2005 05:52 AM

[QUOTE=samknox]There's no such thing as "feminist scholarship".

What?? I don't see how you can possibly say that. That's like saying there's no such thing as African American scholarship, or Jewish scholarship or GLBT scholarship...or any kind of writing and research specific to a cause or group of people.

This comment is so completely nonsensical to me that I am having trouble formulating a response...no such thing as feminist scholarship? How...what...I....sputter...sputter...

wantingscott · January 8th, 2005 06:13 AM

sam,
okay, sorry that got complicated. here's a simpler arguement:
True or False: you have a small penis and feel threatened (inferior) around women?
T__ or F___

wscott

gtrvox · January 8th, 2005 06:23 AM

theda wrote:

However, it's comments like these that encourge me to continue breaking the mould of what women are "supposed" to be doing.

Theda, I hope you won't break the "mould"...if it's mouldy, throw the whole thing out :-)

samknox · January 8th, 2005 08:06 AM

liz wrote:

[QUOTE=samknox]There's no such thing as "feminist scholarship".
What?? I don't see how you can possibly say that. That's like saying there's no such thing as African American scholarship, or Jewish scholarship or GLBT scholarship...or any kind of writing and research specific to a cause or group of people.
This comment is so completely nonsensical to me that I am having trouble formulating a response...no such thing as feminist scholarship? How...what...I....sputter...sputter...

What I mean by "scholarship" is a research-based body of rational thought that proceeds from a premise, to an argument, to a conclusion that is a heretofore unknown fact about the world.

By that definition, there is no such thing as "feminist scholarship".

If by "scholarship" you mean a well-cultivated attitude of resentment, then I'm wrong.

samknox · January 8th, 2005 08:30 AM

wantingscott wrote:

sam,
okay, sorry that got complicated. here's a simpler arguement:
True or False: you have a small penis and feel threatened (inferior) around women?
T__ or F___
wscott

I like independent thinkers.

So far, all Theda's done is spew a little feminist boilerplate, and all you've done is...spew.

You're doing Theda a disservice by coming to her defense. She's smarter than you are.

Merricat · January 8th, 2005 11:34 AM

samknox wrote:

What I mean by "scholarship" is a research-based body of rational thought that proceeds from a premise, to an argument, to a conclusion that is a heretofore unknown fact about the world.
By that definition, there is no such thing as "feminist scholarship".
If by "scholarship" you mean a well-cultivated attitude of resentment, then I'm wrong.

So, based on that defininition of scholarship, why CAN'T there be feminist scholarship, exactly? You keep saying that it doens't exist, but you don't say why.

And give me some examples of "resentful" feminists. And no, I don't mean Valerie Solanis or Andrea Dworkin, the two feminists who always get pulled out to "prove" how much feminists resent men.

samknox · January 8th, 2005 12:21 PM

Merricat wrote:

So, based on that defininition of scholarship, why CAN'T there be feminist scholarship, exactly? You keep saying that it doens't exist, but you don't say why.
And give me some examples of "resentful" feminists. And no, I don't mean Valerie Solanis or Andrea Dworkin, the two feminists who always get pulled out to "prove" how much feminists resent men.

It doesn't exist because rationality is inimical to feminist "thought".

I don't know that feminists are resentful of men, but feminism, as a philosophy (and I'm using the term "philosophy" very loosely) consists almost entirely of a thin layer of carefully selected facts draped over and edifice of resentment.

theda · January 8th, 2005 12:48 PM

samknox wrote:

It doesn't exist because rationality is inimical to feminist "thought".
I don't know that feminists are resentful of men, but feminism, as a philosophy (and I'm using the term "philosophy" very loosely) consists almost entirely of a thin layer of carefully selected facts draped over and edifice of resentment.

Feminism based on resentment? If anyone's sounding resentful my friend it's you. What exactly is your problem with recognising feminism as an academic school of thought? Cos last time I checked universities where still recognising and teaching feminism...

I'm not resentful of men, I'm resentful of particular men who are sexist and make it harder for me to live my life the way I want to live it and expect me to conform to an idea of femininity and womanhood.

samknox · January 9th, 2005 12:32 AM

theda wrote:

Feminism based on resentment? If anyone's sounding resentful my friend it's you. What exactly is your problem with recognising feminism as an academic school of thought? Cos last time I checked universities where still recognising and teaching feminism...
I'm not resentful of men, I'm resentful of particular men who are sexist and make it harder for me to live my life the way I want to live it and expect me to conform to an idea of femininity and womanhood.

Almost all accredited colleges or universities receive some form of government funding. As a result, they are subject to political pressures that have nothing to do with academics. "Women's Studies" departments are political, not academic, entities.

voyeur2 · January 9th, 2005 03:58 AM

samknox wrote:

Almost all accredited colleges or universities receive some form of government funding. As a result, they are subject to political pressures that have nothing to do with academics. "Women's Studies" departments are political, not academic, entities.

So, samknox, is this the revelation of a CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE CREATION OF FEMINISM? It sounds so unbelievable that for the first time in about 7000 years we look at events from the female point of view that there must be some sort of government secret policy to force the universities (with all their academic freedoms unsullied) to recognise it as a legitimate study? Perhaps the earth is really flat also? The earth the centre of the universe? New ideas are indeed uncomfortable. The more ignorent and intellectually rigid the person the greater the discomfort with change.
Can it be that you are intellectually challenged by new perspectives, treatened by the possibility of having to prove a superiority you always assumed? Too rigid to change? Secretly do you fear you are less than your image of yourself should project, that the Emporer has no clothes??
Academically, your 'arguements' are spurious, based on no research that you can mention, and on the face of it - absurd. Show me just one college or university where there is a link in their funding to feminist ercognition as a discipline. Show the academic response to this foolish idea. Do you have a degree? In what?

By the way I applaud this site precisely because it is dedicated to change in attitude towards viewing naked women, to the empowerment of the woman to choose how she will present herself. I am grateful and not surprised by the huge difference in presentation and erotic affect as well as artistic affect these women present compared to the male dominated porn sites. There the women frequently look as if their IQ had been removed through their open mouth sometime just before the shoot. They would probably be a more even match for you so why not get thee hence?
splutter splutter harrumph.

samknox · January 9th, 2005 04:43 AM

voyeur2 wrote:

So, samknox, is this the revelation of a CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE CREATION OF FEMINISM? It sounds so unbelievable that for the first time in about 7000 years we look at events from the female point of view that there must be some sort of government secret policy to force the universities (with all their academic freedoms unsullied) to recognise it as a legitimate study? Perhaps the earth is really flat also? The earth the centre of the universe? New ideas are indeed uncomfortable. The more ignorent and intellectually rigid the person the greater the discomfort with change.
Can it be that you are intellectually challenged by new perspectives, treatened by the possibility of having to prove a superiority you always assumed? Too rigid to change? Secretly do you fear you are less than your image of yourself should project, that the Emporer has no clothes??
Academically, your 'arguements' are spurious, based on no research that you can mention, and on the face of it - absurd. Show me just one college or university where there is a link in their funding to feminist ercognition as a discipline. Show the academic response to this foolish idea. Do you have a degree? In what?
By the way I applaud this site precisely because it is dedicated to change in attitude towards viewing naked women, to the empowerment of the woman to choose how she will present herself. I am grateful and not surprised by the huge difference in presentation and erotic affect as well as artistic affect these women present compared to the male dominated porn sites. There the women frequently look as if their IQ had been removed through their open mouth sometime just before the shoot. They would probably be a more even match for you so why not get thee hence?
splutter splutter harrumph.

In order to save time in the future, I should tell you that I don't dignify personal attacks on me by responding to them.

In the States, the connection between Title IX and the creation of "Women's Studies" programs is well-established. I don't know why you think that I should do your research for you, but I will suggest some reading: Feminism and Freedom, by Michael Levin.

Merricat · January 9th, 2005 05:18 AM

samknox wrote:

It doesn't exist because rationality is inimical to feminist "thought".
I don't know that feminists are resentful of men, but feminism, as a philosophy (and I'm using the term "philosophy" very loosely) consists almost entirely of a thin layer of carefully selected facts draped over and edifice of resentment.

Yes, yes, I know this is what you think, I'm asking you to GIVE ME EXAMPLES. You're making a claim about feminism (that it isn't rational and that it's based on resentment), now give me facts to back it up. Right now your argument just sounds like this:

you: feminism isn't logical
me: why?
you: because it isn't logical

That doesn't work.

Angelene · January 9th, 2005 05:19 AM

Goodness.

This thread has me both intermittantly snickering and face-palming. Where do I begin? First of all, I find it interseting that you (samknox) think feminism doesn't exist. I'm about to graduate with a Women and Gender Studies degree. Let's analyze my department: Women's studies we've heard of... but GENDER studies? What's that?! That's the study of *all* gender, which, since we've already studied women, would be majority-focused on maleness, and how it is that certain people (like you) are socialized to turn out oh-so-wrong. (Yeah, I said it).

Now let's look at my thesis. I'm writing a research thesis on women and crafts using the women of my family as a case study. It specifically look at how the transition of craft skills create intergenerational bonds between women. Well, look at that! No mention of men! No resentment, no nothing! Why? Because, contrary to (your) popular belief, we don't just sit around in our classrooms bitching about how awful men are. We actively study *women*, actually, and sometimes you play into it, but sometimes you all do not. I know you, samknox, might find that difficult to believe... you know, that women do things without men involved... but it's true!

So can you please shut it? I think the vast majority of the other men on this site would agree that you're making them all look bad. And, were this conversation taking place in real life, they would have gagged you long ago and drug you out of the room.

samknox · January 9th, 2005 08:08 AM

Merricat wrote:

Yes, yes, I know this is what you think, I'm asking you to GIVE ME EXAMPLES. You're making a claim about feminism (that it isn't rational and that it's based on resentment), now give me facts to back it up. Right now your argument just sounds like this:
you: feminism isn't logical
me: why?
you: because it isn't logical
That doesn't work.

It's important to distinguish between "equality" feminists and "difference" feminists.

Equality feminists believe that sex roles are culturally imposed. They begin with the premise that human beings are, at birth, "blank slates"; their subsequent behavior is determined soley by their social environment.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that, on the contrary, sex roles are predominately an artifact of our genetic inheritance; in other words, they are "hard-wired".

Equality feminism isn't rational because it begins with a premise that is unsupported by facts, and carefully selects evidence to bolster arguments that support a forgone conclusion.

Difference feminists think that sex roles are either biological or deeply-structured cultural traits. They believe that "female traits" are undervalued, and that among those traits are the "nonrational" and "intuitive".

Difference feminism isn't rational because it doesn't want to be.

The feminist writing that I've read (Friedan, Steinem, Faludi, Dworkin, MacKinnon) seems characterized by an indignation based on anger and jealousy; I call that "resentment".

voyeur2 · January 9th, 2005 09:42 AM

In the States, the connection between Title IX and the creation of "Women's Studies" programs is well-established. I don't know why you think that I should do your research for you, but I will suggest some reading: Feminism and Freedom, by Michael Levin.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about the personal attack bit but I did not actually say you were anything, I merely asked if you fit a number of possibilities, I see you nominate yourself for a fit.

That aside, the mention of US chapter IX as some sort of definitive proof of something ignores the rest of the world. The academic world is much bigger than the US and I for one got none of my degrees in the US. And by the way you have dodged the inportant questions, and have begun redefining feminism into various categories. Do you mean to include all categories in your original statement, or merely the categories that fit your accusation - if any. and I have yet to see you quote any response from a university to the broad accusation you make, or the actual contents of this American thing you refer to. This after all is a world wide forum not bound by the sometimes quaint sensibilities of the US.

And no quotes, from a single source does not make a sufficient academic bibliography. I give you a D for that effort. Is this a personal attack or an attack on the ideas you express?

Besides this whole thing is getting silly. Anyone who thinks the study of women and their issues is not a valid pursuit should not be looking at a site that presents women offering their point of view on themslves. They would be doing things contrary to their supposed rational belief, and qualify for inclusion in the ranks of the truly irrelevant. Or perhaps are merely wankers doing the dangerous and exciting bits.

samknox · January 9th, 2005 11:06 AM

voyeur2 wrote:

In the States, the connection between Title IX and the creation of "Women's Studies" programs is well-established. I don't know why you think that I should do your research for you, but I will suggest some reading: Feminism and Freedom, by Michael Levin.

...the mention of US chapter IX as some sort of definitive proof of something ignores the rest of the world.

I don't mean to ignore the rest of the world, but the United States is the part of it with which I am most familiar.

And by the way you have dodged the inportant questions, and have begun redefining feminism into various categories. Do you mean to include all categories in your original statement, or merely the categories that fit your accusation -

Merricat asked me why I thought feminism was irrational. "Equality" and "difference" feminists represent the majority of women who refer to themselves as "feminists". I thought it would be useful to make that distinction because, even though they are both irrational, they are irrational in different ways.

...and I have yet to see you quote any response from a university to the broad accusation you make, or the actual contents of this American thing you refer to.

Right up until I read this sentence, I thought I had a pretty good command of the English language. I have no idea what you're talking about.

This after all is a world wide forum not bound by the sometimes quaint sensibilities of the US.

Indeed. My experience has been that ignorance and irrationality are worldwide phenomenon.

And no quotes, from a single source does not make a sufficient academic bibliography.

I try not to rely on external "authorities" to make my case for me. I think I can do it well enough by myself.

If you're hungry for a quote, though, here's one:

"Never underestimate the ability of slogans to paralyze thought." - Michael Levin

Anyone who thinks the study of women and their issues is not a valid pursuit should not be looking at a site that presents women offering their point of view on themslves.

Are you saying that there are political requirements for viewing the ISM site? I thought all I needed was money.

;-)

Sam

#1 January 7th, 2005 12:33 PM

Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#2 January 7th, 2005 12:50 PM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#3 January 8th, 2005 02:26 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#4 January 8th, 2005 03:59 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#5 January 8th, 2005 05:30 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#6 January 8th, 2005 05:52 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#7 January 8th, 2005 06:13 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#8 January 8th, 2005 06:23 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#9 January 8th, 2005 08:06 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#10 January 8th, 2005 08:30 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#11 January 8th, 2005 11:34 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#12 January 8th, 2005 12:21 PM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#13 January 8th, 2005 12:48 PM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#14 January 9th, 2005 12:32 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#15 January 9th, 2005 03:58 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#16 January 9th, 2005 04:43 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#17 January 9th, 2005 05:18 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#18 January 9th, 2005 05:19 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#19 January 9th, 2005 08:08 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#20 January 9th, 2005 09:42 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

#21 January 9th, 2005 11:06 AM

Re: Theda: I've read "Backlash". I don't...

Board footer