What is Feminist Theory?

"[Feminist Theory and Education are] an effort to bring insights from the movement and from various female experiences together with research and data gathering to produce new approaches to understanding and ending female oppression"

-Charlotte Bunch
Not by Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education

Entries are written in response to excerpts found in
Feminist Theory: a Reader (2nd Edition), written by Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Published by McGraw-Hill, 2005.

3/13/09

Part VI: 1985-1995

In "The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology" Ynestra King writes "...in patriarchal thought, women are believed to be closer to nature than men. this gives women a particular stake in ending the domination of nature--in healing the alienation between human and nonhuman nature" (470).

While I can see why the idea that women are closer to nature could be demeaning to some, I personally feel that I because I am human I have a connection to nature and the world around me, and because I am a woman and a feminist this relationship is stronger than it would be given a different set of descriptive characteristics.

I'm an Environmental and Women's Studies double major, so clearly I have come to see the correlations between the two fields and this background helps me to understand and place my relationship with the natural world around me.

Growing into this field of study I have read things like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the Brundtland Commission Report (which was headed by a woman, Gro Harlem Brundtland), Wangari Mathaai's memoir Unbowed and Vandana Shiva's Soil Not Oil. All of these women would probably testify to the closeness to nature they--as women--feel. Is this just because they are women? No, probably not. And dissecting our human experiences to fit within certain labels isn't what feminism is about, either. Furthermore, there are plenty of environmental scientists who are men (and feminists), and probaby plenty of environmental scientists that are women but don't identify as feminists. Take for instance Robert Engelman, author of More: Population, Nature and What Women Want. Clearly Engelman isn't a woman, but he is an environmentalist, a writer, and perhaps a feminist.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't just because I'm a woman or a feminist that I have an affinity for environmental justice. It's because of who I am that I have this affinity. Yet who I am--my very essence--cannot be peeled away from the fact that my gender is female and I identify socially as a woman.

And, while nature and culture are pitted against one another in just one of many socially constructed binary systems, I think advances for both the feminist and the environmental movement could be made by deconstructing this binary. When we start seeing nature (woman) and culture (man) as intricately linked to one another and promote a symbiotic relationship between the two (instead of the current parasitic relationship) that will be great progress.

Wangari Maathai "Taking Root":




Vandana Shiva press conference:

Part V: 1975-1985

In “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Laura Mulvey writes “the determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly” (299).

Most of the time advertisements, commercials, TV shows and movies are shot from the male gaze, meaning the perspective of the camera—everything from its angle to what it sees and the things it focuses on—are from a dominantly male perspective.

I think this directly relates to Meredith LeVande’s presentation on “Women, Pop Music and Pornography,” particularly the relationship between consumerism and patriarchy. Heidi Hartmann writes in “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union” that “we can usually define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women” (358).

This is so obviously true of the communications industry which produces and airs everything from cell phone commercials where Beyonce seductively asks viewers to “let me upgrade you” to porn starring barely legal blondes. Mega mergers have created a near monopoly on the market and it’s probably safe to assume those pushing such mergers were men who sit comfortably at the very top of the patriarchal structure. And, they have benefitted in everyway from these mergers, too; they’ve cornered the market and are living in opulent wealth, probably ordering porn from HBO in penthouse hotel suites as I write.

I did take away some new knowledge from LeVande’s presentation. But, I also have a critique to offer. What LeVande had to say ties nicely into the readings we’ve done on race, from “Chicana Feminism,” written by Anna NietoGomez to “A Black Feminist Statement,” written by the Combahee River Collective and “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” by Audre Lorde.

The women writers of the Combahee River Collective have it right when they say “the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (312). LeVande had it wrong. While she spoke out against the male gaze, she spoke from a very white perspective—a “caucasian gaze”—if you will. Quite frankly I was uncomfortable with the way she didn’t incorporate images of minority women throughout her talk but rather gave them their own section sandwiched between points about white women. While I respect that women of color often reject the typical definition of feminism—for obvious reasons—I don’t think it’s a white woman’s place to isolate these women or to ignore the interlocking systems of oppression that further oppress women of color.

Audre Lorde writes “…it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (338). But this statement shouldn’t be taken to mean that the oppressors have no responsibility in consciously avoiding making mistakes or being open to learning from those they oppress. It seems to me that LeVande—as some one who has studied feminist theory (presumably)—would have a better grasp on this concept. Apparently she needs a refresher course in interlocking systems of oppression and the responsibility all women have to one another to avoid the pitfalls of such systems.

Oh, one more point...LeVande is a children's singer/songwriter who decided to leave the adult music industry after feeling pressured to fit into a semi-pornographic image to further her career. To me this just seems like false empowerment, a sort of fake agency. Which is worse: fitting a hypersexualized image or a mothering/infantile one? Don't get me wrong...what she's doing is great; kids need positive role models. But, is it really the best way to react to the increasing pressure women performers feel to fit a certain image in order to be successful? I don't think so...I think LeVande copped out and she needs to face the music. Here's her latest music video:

More Part V: Separatism

In "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power," Marilyn Frye writes "Feminist separation is, of course, separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationship, roles and activities which are male-defined, male-dominated and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege--this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women" (333).

So, Frye contends that feminist separatism is a personal decision which can be used for political means. Separatism comes in many forms. She says it can mean "Breaking up or avoiding close relationships or working relationships; forbidding someone to enter your house; excluding someone from your company, or from your meeting; withdrawal from participation in some activity or institution, or avoidance of participation; avoidance of communications and influence from certain quarters (not listening to music with sexist lyrics, not watching TV);withholding commitment or support; rejection of or rudeness toward obnoxious individuals" (333).

Here's my issue: I think separatism is theoretically an interesting and sound concept. But I also think theory and praxis are two separate things. I think it would be a step backwards to avoid working relationships with men and I think it's just ridiculous to think being rude to men is any kind of an effective resistance to patriarchy, either.

While I see the theory behind the concept of separatism--and while I agree it's important to assert female independence and solidarity--it's absolutely ludicrous from a practical perspective to think that half of the population could go through life avoiding the other half of the population.

What feminism needs is not separatism. What feminism needs is to emphasize woman to woman relationships--both personal and working--while still recognizing instead of denying the existence of woman to man relationships. Nurturing woman to woman relationships, focusing on women centered spaces and the positive portrayal of women in television and music seems to me like a far sounder plan than living as part of a commune. As appealing as communal life sounds--and regardless of my tendency towards radical feminism--I feel the need to challenge the concept of radicalism--maybe it's the easy way out?

3/12/09

Just a Little Bit More of Part IV: Problems that had No Name

Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Betty Friedan published important pieces of feminist writing decades apart. Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in 1892 and Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963. And while seventy years separate these pieces publish dates, the same current runs through them.

Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in a semi-autobiographical nature. She struggled
throughout her life with depression. After the birth of her first child Gilman suffered from post-partum depression, which was diagnosed as hysteria. Gilman was ordered rest and for months was not allowed out of bed let alone to lift a finger for any purpose, including writing--her passion. Aside from just this difficult time in her life, in general marriage and motherhood had not fulfilled her. She questioned the decision she had made to marry in the first place; Gilman writes in her autobiography The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman that part of her longed to follow a career as a writer.

Betty Friedan identified a similar—if not directly related—problem in the Feminine Mystique. She noticed her classmates were unfulfilled by what they had been taught should fulfill them: a husband, a home and children. She writes: “Over and over women heard in voices of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own feminity” (198).

The "woman problem” doesn't stop there...just to throw one more example into the mix, Anne Koedt—author of “Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” (published in 1970)—identifie
s yet another male created problem for which women are blamed. Koedt deconstructs the Freudian concept of frigidity and redirects the blame for this “problem.” She identifies numerous reasons why the myth of the vaginal orgasm is still believed and essentially debunks the idea that frigidity is woman’s dysfunction. Rather, Koedt writes, frigidity is a result of a patriarchal understanding and misuse of the female body.

Koedt says: “looking for a cure to a problem that has none c
an lead a woman on an endless path of self-hatred and insecurity” (230). This statement sums up not only her argument, but also Friedan’s and Gilman’s. While women forced to partake in the cult of true womanhood found themselves wrestling with post-partum depression and insanity, and housewives during the 1950s turned to popping pills and buying ready-made clothing, women caught between the first and second wave of feminism found themselves feeling misunderstood and their bodies being misused for male pleasure only.

These trends will continue so long as women don't ask the important question
s they owe it to themselves to be asking: Should I accept the answers a male dominated society has handed me? How can I push past the oppressive structures of patriarchy that force me to feel unhappy and uncomfortable in my own body? What will it take for me to find my own truth, one that isn't relative to role I play in the dominant system of male hierarchy?




More Part IV: Difference...

Difference is natural, right? Well, maybe not—I guess it all depends on how you define difference. I say difference is natural because I define it as the uniqueness each individual is born into the world with. What isn’t natural is the value placed on some characteristics and not on others—whether they are physical or mental, tangible or abstract.

Joan Scott--in "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: or, The Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism"--says "the concept of difference...is made through implicit or explicit contrast, that a positive definition rests on the negation or repression of something represented as antithetical to it" (448).

The most jarring personal experiences I’ve had with difference involve my father. He has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair. Obviously the definition of him as disabled relies on the meaning and value of able being antithetical to disabled. Furthermore, all of us in the "able" category are constantly exploiting and oppressing those in the "disabled" category; these two terms and their meanings couldn't exist without one another.

In addition to the obvious—having limited mobility—my dad sometimes slurs his speech and can be hard to understand. While most people may not see past this description, I know that he is also a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, my local school board and for twenty years ran a successful law practice. He's also a self-centered person and a bad father. And while this blog isn't a critique of him our turbulent relationship some how makes me feel like I relate to Kate Millett--from her negative experiences with her father to the way she writes and what she has to say.

Numerous times I’ve had to witness how my dad's disability allows for others to see him as different and "less than" based on this difference. My earliest recollection of noticing this difference is when I was in the fourth grade; my family was running late to one of my soccer games and as my mom opened the sliding door of the family van and the handicap accessible ramp opened for me to run down to the field it hit me for the first time—none of the other kids had vans with ramps in them, or dads in wheelchairs.

Years later I was on a business trip with my dad at a prison where he was doing pro bono work. My neck burned with shame and sadness as I saw for the first time how some of his colleagues reacted to his disability and how he had to work ten times as hard to assert his masculinity in a simple conversation. Disability is just one factor that complicates the intersectionality of oppressive structures, which are almost always gender based. In this situation my father was treated as less than a man because he had a disability. Even though he is a man, he is rarely treated with the perks of patriarchy others that share his gender often recieve...I can't even recall how many times the waiter or waitress has given my mother the check instead of him, not to mention the numerous times I've been asked--as someone sitting next to him at the table--what kind of side or salad dressing he'd like.

Doesn't this lend interesting insight to the ways those not possessing traditionally "masculine" characteristics are essentially viewed--as not having a voice let alone economic power?

So here comes the million dollar question: how do we eradicate power structures based on difference?

And, in relation to feminism, how can we value the natural differences women have—from one another and from their male counterparts—without exploiting these differences? Do we want to be valued and allotted power based on our difference or do we want to eradicate the concepts of difference and power all together?

I agree with Kate Millett when she writes “The term ‘politics’ refer[s] to power structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another. By way of parenthesis one might add that although an ideal politics might simply be conceived of as the arrangement of human life on agreeable and rational principles from whence the entire notion of power over others should be banished, one must confess that this is not what constitutes the political as we know it, and it is to this that we must address ourselves…sex is a status category with political implications” (219).

And, while I appreciate Shulasmith Firestone for the idealistic concepts of which she writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would not longer matter culturally” (227). When it comes down to it, I don’t think power can be erased, I don't think sex distinction can be ignored. The answer must be--at least for the meantime--to recognize and embrace difference, making sure not to value one “different” over another.

Probably easier said than done...