Opinion on feminism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My beliefs about what feminism means to me mostly involve various efforts at the dissolution of at the very least a society whose power structures operate around gender (and I do think that gendered discourse infects power structures whether or not they actually have to do with sex per se), if not the dissolution outright of gender and sexuality as originary concepts of identification (in fact, I would rather see sexuality dissolved than gender; I'd be fine with gender as an originary concept as long as it had nothing to do with social power or biological sex). Accordingly, I think liberal feminism is half-assed at best and actively working against what I believe in as a queer Christo-feminist with radical-feminist sympathies at worst. I don't think that the practical effect of the project of liberal feminism is to create greater social equality at all, because it takes as granted and in some cases even exaggerates the ideas behind the power structures it purports to criticize. In the form of things like 'Slutwalk' or 'feminist porn', it's redolent of an if-you-can't-beat-them... mentality which I think is really unhelpful.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex and John Stuart Mill's On the Subjugation of Women are two of my favorite philosophical texts.

It's sad that more recent feminist authors (Judith Butler) can't write in a comprehensible style.

EDIT: Oh, I'm also a big fan of Joan Wallach Scott (despite having some issues with her).

I have immense issues with The Second Sex, and I like Judith Butler's ideas when I can get through her prose, but you're right that that's a feat.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a positive opinion of first-wave, somewhat negative of second-wave, quite negative of third-wave, and very positive of some particular strands that don't really fit into the 'wave' model and which generally stand against the excesses of second and third waves (I like Ariel Levy a lot, also Saba Mahmood and Hiratsuka Raicho). BRTD articulated a lot of my problems with second-wave feminism. My problems with third-wave feminism should, I hope, be apparent.

The 'wave' way of dividing it is asinine in any case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My beliefs about what feminism means to me mostly involve various efforts at the dissolution of at the very least a society whose power structures operate around gender (and I do think that gendered discourse infects power structures whether or not they actually have to do with sex per se), if not the dissolution outright of gender and sexuality as originary concepts of identification (in fact, I would rather see sexuality dissolved than gender; I'd be fine with gender as an originary concept as long as it had nothing to do with social power or biological sex). Accordingly, I think liberal feminism is half-assed at best and actively working against what I believe in as a queer Christo-feminist with radical-feminist sympathies at worst. I don't think that the practical effect of the project of liberal feminism is to create greater social equality at all, because it takes as granted and in some cases even exaggerates the ideas behind the power structures it purports to criticize. In the form of things like 'Slutwalk' or 'feminist porn', it's redolent of an if-you-can't-beat-them... mentality which I think is really unhelpful.

I...think...I agree with this...somewhat, as a queer-commie radical feminist.

I'm sorry. My use of English has been broken* by the UMass College of Humanities and Fine Arts.

*Broken?--or made better?!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are we thinking about the same thing? Some clarification might help me in evaluating my position.

Marxism is rather more egalitarianist than feminism.  When implemented properly--not that it ever is, and not that I don't fear its proper implementation to begin with--Marxism does not put special emphasis on gender, except to say that both genders should be regarded equally when possible.  The folks I've met who grew up in Hungary, China, Bulgaria, etc., and who later attended graduate school in the US, UK, France, etc., frequently commented that the ratio of males to females is so high in those Western societies compared to those to which they are accustomed.  Female physicians, female scientists, and female researchers are not uncommon in the former Warsaw Pact countries.  One positive aspect of Marxism is thus that it is egalitarian regarding the sexes.  For that reason--and, frankly, for a few others--I have a grudging respect for Marxism on some level.

Feminism, on the other hand, is fundamentally anti-egalitarian and unabashedly sexist.  In this aspect it is no different than masculinism, and it is therefore something that I could ever support on any level.  It is a philosophy based on fear and contempt, and one that mongers fear and contempt.

...

....

sage