Post-modernism and feminism

can somebody help me draw an outline for me thesis on this subject??

Yes, I can. But I won’t. If you can’t do it then you shouldn’t have taken it on. … stemology/

well i know the topic at hand well but my thoughts are just too scattered. i need to be more focused and all i asked for was a starting point not like i am asking anyone to do my thesis for me.

Okay, my suggested starting point is to distinguish between feminism of the body (Haraway, Plant, William Gibson and so on) and feminism of language (Cixous, Irigaray, Butler and so on). Then I’d study the tenets and proof for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and consider closely whether or not it is tenable (in any form, not just with that name) because it is one of the main battlegrounds for contemporary feminism debates and one that philosophically, at least, is highly controversial. Feminism of the body is more straightforward than feminism of the mind/language, or so I conceive of it.

[ Feminism of the body is more straightforward than feminism of the mind/language, or so I conceive of it.

How so?

But feminism is of the body - it is an aspect of the body.
It is a political movement by a group from the perspective of its biological characteristics.
The black man strives for liberation from the white man, claiming no color should be recognized as relevant but using this very skin-colour premise to do it. He draws attention to the skin in order to then draw attention away from it.
It’s self-contradicting.

The same can be said for feminism.

Thing is, if the mind is how a human being should be judged by then physicality is insignificant.
But the mind/body dichotomy is a false one. The mind and the body are expressions of Being using different means.

The question is: How much does a being’s existence become determined and limited by its historical (biological, racial, national, cultural) past and how far can reason and a being’s experiential past go in surpassing these determinations?
Gender roles are rooted in an evolutionary past with procreative strategies which creates different physical forms and different psychological outlooks.
This cannot be denied, but can it be surpassed?

If we are to say that the rational mind is the defining characteristic of what we call a human being, then this rationality must emancipate itself from its natural and biological determinations by denying them or controlling them through asceticism.
It cannot be said that I am a fully rational being if food controls me, and my appetites, whether nutritional or sexual, dictate my reason’s perspective.
Then my mind becomes an apologist for my needs.

If I self-identify with my sexual role as a male, then my existence becomes entrapped within this premise.
I am no longer free but a creature with a biological role.
Therefore I judge myself, and I allow others to judge me, by how I play this role.

I cannot then say that I am being misjudged or that I am more than my sexual performance when I’ve set up the premises of my own evaluation.


No, it is of ‘certain conceptions of the body and it’s social status’

Not entirely. Feminism wouldn’t have resorted to changing ‘manhole covers’ to ‘personhole covers’ (feminofascist revisionism) if it were solely concerned with the body. That’s why I drew the distinction in the first place - the body is physical, language is metaphysical.

Of course it is. So is the practicality of popular feminism which is, basically, ‘give me want I want but use the excuse of gender equality’. See my thread on ‘kid in sweet shop Feminism’ in Social Sciences.

‘Expressions of Being’ - what? Being merely is, it cannot be ‘expressed’.

If you torture someone in the right way then you can get them to change their beliefs on anything. There is no sovereignty over the mind or the body by the ‘individual’. Well, there’s no individual, but that’s a whole other argument.

Feminism became a major political movement in the latter half of the 20th century so it, rather predictably, became trammelled up with cultural liberalism and consumerism. Therefore today’s feminist can believe any sort of claptrap that has nothing to do with gender equality and masquerade as being a feminist because ‘she’s an individual with her own mind’. That, to me, is the greater danger…

It’s bull. Gender has nothing to do with evolution. I loathe the way evolutionary theory and the associated primitivist, 19th century anthropological metaphors are used to explain EVERY facet of human behaviour, no matter how ridiculous they become in the process.

I said nothing about rationality and besides, rationality is merely another metaphor. Interestingly, it is one that has been appropriated by some feminists and we’ve seen a reversal of the rational/emotional binary opposition that Cixous identified. Now men are the idiotic, emotional children and women are the cool, rational leaders (or so it is popularly portrayed). It’s the same mistake as before with the genders reversed. Somehow this metaphysical positive discrimination is meant to bring about the reality of gender equality. Needless to say, I’m not convinced.

Sure, but we may be able to rid ourselves of our reliance on food, or at least diminish it’s degree of control. Not in the name of rationality, just in the name of making us tougher.

If one is determined biologically (one isn’t, we have the ability to change our own biology) then yes, this would be true.

If one conceives of oneself as anything as distinct from anything else one one is entrapped. This is true of ALL self-identification.

Not if your mind is merely an apologist for your actions. Then there is no judgement, there is merely the pursuit of satiation of natural desire.

Well, not without being a hypocrite, no. I don’t know why you’d feel so attached to some ludicrous scientific metaphor that is proven false in almost every exchange between men and women.

any anti-feminist viewpoint??? i mean why this movement…what have women gained from it…do u really actually believe that it should have been termed as a “movement” in the first place??