PDA

View Full Version : Education So I went to a feminist conference today


Jenson71
03-24-2009, 02:25 PM
It was a panel of four speakers: two professors (one a "feminist historian" -- there's no such thing, btw) and two students.

The first professor got involved with feminism through the anti-Vietnam movement. She became more radicalized and now leads the Women's Studies department on campus. She was married, had four children, and is now a lesbian with a partner. But she loves being a grandmother and baking homemade bread. Her view of feminism was that it's a way of life. It's about feeding third world countries and believing in education for all.

The second professor talked about how gratifying a midwife was for her second baby, and how pregnancy had "been taking away" from her in the hospital birth of her first baby.

The students were intelligent, aware, and kind girls who talked about the importance of equal pay and equal rights.

We were asked if we considered ourselves as feminists by checking "yes, no, or not sure/undecided" on a piece of paper and handing it it. I checked no. It was announced that 1/3 considered themselves feminists, with the majority being not sure/undecided.

The midwife professor asked some of us to share comments. I raised my hand. I told them that feeding third world countries and believing in education for all didn't seem like feminism. I said I could believe in those ideas without considering myself a feminist. In fact, I think it's quite absurd to call those tenets of feminism. There seems to be other labels that fit better. I was told then that feminism is really about equality for all. Again, what kind of label is that then? I mentioned that I believe in equal rights, equal pay, feeding third world countries, and education for all, but I certainly didn't see myself as a feminist. One of the professors said that it was my choice to call myself whatever I wanted. Okay then. Later, the other professor said that if we believe in any of these things, we must be courageous enough to use the term "feminist." It was important to have lots of feminists because power comes in numbers.

I have a problem with feminist historians. As I mentioned above, I don't think there is such a thing. There are only historians or not historians. A historian is concerned with the truth. Historians with adjectives, Marxist-historians, feminist-historians, etc, are agenda makers. They are concerned with slanting history to advocate for a political position.

One of the things I get from Adjective Historians is that there is always "The Power Holding Group" deliberately and consciously holding back "The Powerless." Let me be clear, there are people with power and people without. But the Adjective Historian seems to make everything the Power Holding Group does into acts specifically that keep down The Powerless. The Powerless is usually blacks, gays, women, are some other minority identity group. The first professor said that feminist perspective is not a man-bashing ideology, but one that is always focused on the "5000 years of patriarchical society that tries to keep women out of power." I don't think that's reality. It's not like the males got together every month and figured out how to keep women down, and learned beating techniques. No, it was simply an ingrained assumption of nature. We know today that women and men are just as smart as each other and deserve equal political and social rights. We've just learned. It's simply been a learning process, not one between good and evil. Aside from historiagraphy, there have also been some horrible psuedoscience based on feminist ideologies. For example, Luce Irigaray argued that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation" and that: "Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders." You don't a degree in physical science to see the bullshit in that. Not everything is supposed to have gender behind it. The Washington Memorial is not a declaration for masculinity. Some of these ideas do nothing but set back women, and man, further behind.

On the topic of midwives, I wonder how safe it is. I asked the panel afterwards (I also told them I took the Catholic view of abortion, and they were nice about it) about midwife deliveries. "Well, when things go wrong, they do end up taking the mother to the hospital." Wow, that seems like a good place to start to me. For the midwife professor, this idea that her pregnancy was "holistic" seemed extremely selfish. Wouldn't a mother rather have robots do the delivery if she knew the odds were safer than any other way? It strikes me that a pregnancy is more about the baby being born healthy that it is about a mother feeling a holistic experience or something other new age garbage. I was assured that midwife deliveries are actually safe when you look at the stats. But when there's a problem, well, there's the bullrush to the "robots" who don't care about your feelings.

At the end, they asked me to be in a picture for their archives. I'm sure I'm now the centerpiece of a dart board.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 03:06 PM
Some of these people are absolute loons.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 03:12 PM
But did you get any pussy?

jiveturkey
03-24-2009, 03:13 PM
I would have started hittin' bitches in the shitter.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 03:21 PM
I had a midwife...until I didn't need her due to c-section. She did all her births, 5 of them at home on her living room floor with the kids and daddy participating. Then she ground the placenta up in a blender and made smoothies for everyone.

She was no feminist though.

jiveturkey
03-24-2009, 03:28 PM
I had a midwife...until I didn't need her due to c-section. She did all her births, 5 of them at home on her living room floor with the kids and daddy participating. Then she ground the placenta up in a blender and made smoothies for everyone.

She was no feminist though.Thanks for sharing. Sounds like she went back in time for no reason.

raybec 4
03-24-2009, 03:29 PM
I had a midwife...until I didn't need her due to c-section. She did all her births, 5 of them at home on her living room floor with the kids and daddy participating. Then she ground the placenta up in a blender and made smoothies for everyone.

She was no feminist though.

I love me a good baby drink. Tasty

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 03:31 PM
I had a midwife...until I didn't need her due to c-section. She did all her births, 5 of them at home on her living room floor with the kids and daddy participating. Then she ground the placenta up in a blender and made smoothies for everyone.

She was no feminist though.

Makes good pie too.

SNR
03-24-2009, 04:35 PM
It's about feeding third world countries and believing in education for all. O RLY?

That professor sounds like she's merely a feminist who supports that stuff and found it convenient to lump it all together as "feminism."

I knew some women's studies people when I was an undergraduate. Their classes were always kind of silly and almost like a club.

I look at it as if you believe women are completely equal to men in terms of their capabilities in getting educated, holding a career, and living life, and that you also believe they should not be restricted by societal norms or by receiving less pay for the same job, you are a feminist. So I would consider myself a feminist.

The problem is these professors put their own definitions to the word, so not everybody can call themselves a feminist, and it almost makes it an exclusive thing. Like a true fan feminist or something. That only complicates their positions and makes feminism a fringe point of view, when it shouldn't be.

KCChiefsMan
03-24-2009, 04:39 PM
I once took a major womens writer's class at KU. I had to take english 205 and that was one of the few options left. Worst....class....ever. Had a short lesbian profressor with a "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A LESBIAN" haircut. We had to read 1 book a week, I could explain what happened and all, but not good enough, I was supposed to interpret it as if I were a women in the 18th century....my only C in college.

MagicHef
03-24-2009, 05:06 PM
A large part behind the natural birth idea is avoiding unnecessary interventions. If there's nothing wrong with your appendix, would you get an appendectomy? Pitocin is used to speed up labors, but can also put the baby into distress. If labor is progressing normally, should the mother get Pitocin? Yet it is given to nearly all laboring women in hospitals. There are many other interventions that are not always necessary, but are given as part of the normal course of treatment. The fact is, outcomes for normal births are typically much better (better bonding between mother and baby, more responsive/less distressed babies) without hospitals.

oldandslow
03-24-2009, 06:12 PM
There are only historians or not historians. A historian is concerned with the truth. Historians with adjectives, Marxist-historians, feminist-historians, etc, are agenda makers. They are concerned with slanting history to advocate for a political position.
.

This deserves a thread of its own. I am not in love with hyphenated scholars either, but to suggest that the dominant segment in any given culture does not slant history to its advantage is naive.

I suspect you are a historian...do you think your view of American events would be different if you had read history from an Indian perspective?

For example, Cahokia IL moundbuilders had a population as large as London or Paris in 1300. They were a complex society, complete with priests, politics, etc. Not one in 100 high school or college texts discuss this civilization. Why?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 08:02 PM
For example, Cahokia IL moundbuilders had a population as large as London or Paris in 1300. They were a complex society, complete with priests, politics, etc. Not one in 100 high school or college texts discuss this civilization. Why?

Because they discuss their own culture?

I don't think the Cherokees included much about the Inuits. So your correct about the dominant culture.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 08:40 PM
This deserves a thread of its own. I am not in love with hyphenated scholars either, but to suggest that the dominant segment in any given culture does not slant history to its advantage is naive.

I suspect you are a historian...do you think your view of American events would be different if you had read history from an Indian perspective?

oldandslow, no doubt it would be. And no doubt learning the Native American history is important. So is learning black history, women's history. But that all encompasses history to me. Now I think we are talking about what schools should teach in history classes. But an honest view of history does not ignore them, simply can not ignore them. So what the heck is the "feminist historian"? As far as I can tell, it is the historian who sees the past as a tool to advance an agenda that is something other than the pursuit of the truth. Here is a feature listed on their website of the journal Gender and History: Forums debating topics such as same-sex love, gendering the nation, and sexuality and empire. Also, the feminist historian greatly exaggerates this one particular ideology. Believing it holds the answers to everything, they have already honed themselves into one perspective. Here is how one historian puts it (http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0010/0010vie1.cfm): "reexamine and rewrite the entire historical narrative to reveal the construction and workings of gender." Whoa! How necessary and useful is that, other than creating your own job security by demanding that universities, colleges, and history departments find this important?

alanm
03-24-2009, 09:27 PM
Maybe it's just me. But why would any college male even want to attend a feminist conference. NTTATWWT.

alanm
03-24-2009, 09:28 PM
oldandslow, no doubt it would be. And no doubt learning the Native American history is important. So is learning black history, women's history. But that all encompasses history to me. Now I think we are talking about what schools should teach in history classes. But an honest view of history does not ignore them, simply can not ignore them. So what the heck is the "feminist historian"? As far as I can tell, it is the historian who sees the past as a tool to advance an agenda that is something other than the pursuit of the truth. Here is a feature listed on their website of the journal Gender and History: Forums debating topics such as same-sex love, gendering the nation, and sexuality and empire. Also, the feminist historian greatly exaggerates this one particular ideology. Believing it holds the answers to everything, they have already honed themselves into one perspective. Here is how one historian puts it (http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0010/0010vie1.cfm): "reexamine and rewrite the entire historical narrative to reveal the construction and workings of gender." Whoa! How necessary and useful is that, other than creating your own job security by demanding that universities, colleges, and history departments find this important?
Ah I see. Carry on.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 09:34 PM
Maybe it's just me. But why would any college male even want to attend a feminist conference. NTTATWWT.

Same reason I went to the Is Racism Still Alive? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=204046)panel. I thought it'd be interesting, plus I like to debate people if there is an opportunity.

I think about half the audience was male.

Iowanian
03-24-2009, 09:57 PM
Did you hold up a sign that said "Iron my shirt, Bitch"?

Iowanian
03-24-2009, 10:01 PM
Did you participate in the wailing for the loss of the old grown forest too?

You were there, you bought the Tshirt.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/roFB7bGCAgc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/roFB7bGCAgc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2009, 10:09 PM
Holy, crap Jens....I'll bet you did.

Just, turn in you man-card....NOW. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2009, 10:11 PM
This deserves a thread of its own. I am not in love with hyphenated scholars either, but to suggest that the dominant segment in any given culture does not slant history to its advantage is naive.

I suspect you are a historian...do you think your view of American events would be different if you had read history from an Indian perspective?

For example, Cahokia IL moundbuilders had a population as large as London or Paris in 1300. They were a complex society, complete with priests, politics, etc. Not one in 100 high school or college texts discuss this civilization. Why?


Holy crap, this is why....Terry is da-man. :thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:13 PM
Explain to me why someone cannot be a feminist historian, I don't really buy your reasoning.

FWIW, I suggest you do some serious looking into what exactly historiography is, because your assertion that people who aren't labeled Marxists or feminists or other "ists" are the only ones who have a bias, is quite frankly, laughable.

One of the major thrusts of feminism is to uncover bias within history, because it exists.

Furthermore, I might tell you to do some research on the literary canon and feminism's challenge to it.

Finally, feminism has always been most cleanly defined as "a struggle to end sexist oppression". Whether or not you choose to identify yourself with that is your own prerogative.

If you'd like any reading material, just let me know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:22 PM
Jenson, there are three discrete "waves" within the feminist movement. Any basic historiography into feminism can analyze and situate those waves within a historical framework.

Someone who chooses to focus on the relative successes, excesses, and failures of second-wave feminism in the 1960's, is, by definition, a feminist historian. I see value in that.

I also see value in scholars who unearth the contributions that women have made throughout history by their own due diligence that have been glossed over and swept under the rug. That is another type of feminist historiography, and it has academic merit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:23 PM
Maybe it's just me. But why would any college male even want to attend a feminist conference. NTTATWWT.

Because you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 10:25 PM
Explain to me why someone cannot be a feminist historian, I don't really buy your reasoning.

FWIW, I suggest you do some serious looking into what exactly historiography is, because your assertion that people who aren't labeled Marxists or feminists or other "ists" are the only ones who have a bias, is quite frankly, laughable.

Of course people have biases. Eliminating them is impossible. But the good historian must try to downplay them. Exaggerating your bias is the opposite action of a good social scientist, historian.

One of the major thrusts of feminism is to uncover bias within history, because it exists.

But that's part of what the historian does.

If you'd like any reading material, just let me know.

Sure, absolutely.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 10:28 PM
Someone who chooses to focus on the relative successes, excesses, and failures of second-wave feminism in the 1960's, is, by definition, a feminist historian. I see value in that.

I also see value in scholars who unearth the contributions that women have made throughout history by their own due diligence that have been glossed over and swept under the rug. That is another type of feminist historiography, and it has academic merit.

But both those topics seem like issues the historian of feminism or the historian of women's studies actually looks into.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:31 PM
But that's part of what the historian does.

Then all you are taking issue with is semantics. A point of her emphasis is to look at either

1) The history of the feminist movement(s) through history and their impact on society, who they included and excluded

or

2) How women have been left out in the standard narrative of history.

Every historian at the doctoral level is going to have a rather narrow set of specializations. Some people may enjoy antebellum New England. Others may want to look at how women were glossed over in history.

You are assuming that because she calls herself a feminist that she is going to put Martha Washington on the front of the boat crossing the Delaware, or Mary Lincoln at Gettysburg. That in and of itself bespeaks of a bias, and your idea of either/or in regards to historians is reductive and binaristic, which if you dabble further into the humanities, you will find is a practice that is not well regarded.

Iowanian
03-24-2009, 10:31 PM
I'm not sure if this photo is a representation of Jenson's identity or a simulation of the average beaver pelt in the auditorium for this presentation.

http://blog.randomuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/iron_beard.jpg

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:38 PM
For further reading:

The Feminine Mystique
The Second Sex
Feminism is for Everybody
Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

I'd also suggest you check out the writings of Gloria Anzaldua, Susan Bordo, Martha Nussbaum, and I would encourage you to stay away from Andrea Dworkin and Judith Butler.

keg in kc
03-24-2009, 10:39 PM
That reads like you had much more of a problem with them than they did with you.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 10:39 PM
Then all you are taking issue with is semantics. A point of her emphasis is to look at either

1) The history of the feminist movement(s) through history and their impact on society, who they included and excluded

or

2) How women have been left out in the standard narrative of history.

Every historian at the doctoral level is going to have a rather narrow set of specializations. Some people may enjoy antebellum New England. Others may want to look at how women were glossed over in history.

You are assuming that because she calls herself a feminist that she is going to put Martha Washington on the front of the boat crossing the Delaware, or Mary Lincoln at Gettysburg. That in and of itself bespeaks of a bias, and your idea of either/or in regards to historians is reductive and binaristic, which if you dabble further into the humanities, you will find is a practice that is not well regarded.

Note that I'm not taking aim at specializations. I'm taking aim at methods and political biases in research that affect conclusions.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:41 PM
Mulvey, Judith Halberstam, and Kristeva are also good.

Stay away from Donna Haraway. Too much of an obscurantist.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2009, 10:43 PM
Mulvey, Judith Halberstam, and Kristeva are also good.

Stay away from Donna Haraway. Too much of an obscurantist.

Damn it, Hamas....how could you dare leave out Camille Paglia. Now, there is real feminist who has her shit together.

;)




:evil:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:44 PM
Note that I'm not taking aim at specializations. I'm taking aim at methods and political biases in research that affect conclusions.

And you are assuming that because someone claims that they are a feminist historian, or a Marxist historian, or any other preceding "adjective" that they are going to axiomatically be intellectually dishonest. That's a logical leap.

The fact of the matter is that every theoritician is going to have an "ism" attached to them.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 10:45 PM
For further reading:

The Feminine Mystique
The Second Sex
Feminism is for Everybody
Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

I'd also suggest you check out the writings of Gloria Anzaldua, Susan Bordo, Martha Nussbaum, and I would encourage you to stay away from Andrea Dworkin and Judith Butler.

I also don't have a problem with this giant block called feminism, in regards to equal pay, equal rights, if some want to consider it a "way of life," feeding the hungry, I understand the argument for reproductive rights, etc. I think that a female is just as great as a male -- no biological difference makes either superior.

So it's not feminism itself I'm questioning, although having a midwife for "holistic" experiences still seems a bit selfish to me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2009, 10:50 PM
I also don't have a problem with this giant block called feminism, in regards to equal pay, equal rights, if some want to consider it a "way of life," feeding the hungry, I understand the argument for reproductive rights, etc. I think that a female is just as great as a male -- no biological difference makes either superior.

Then you are taking exception to the arguments of one person and you are trying to extrapolate as a commentary on a larger populace. That's not really fair to other people. She doesn't speak for feminist historians writ large.

FWIW, if you ever study feminism or gender studies in further detail, you'll find that biology is but a small sliver of the pie. Gender and sexuality are disparate entities.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 10:55 PM
And you are assuming that because someone claims that they are a feminist historian, or a Marxist historian, or any other preceding "adjective" that they are going to axiomatically be intellectually dishonest. That's a logical leap.

How? First of all, in some work, they, Marxist-historian Howard Zinn for example, straight up say that since perfect objectivity is impossible, they are just going to give their slant of history. Wow, thanks for the attempt.

Why should I not assume that a feminist historian will view things from a prism in which the story certainly revolves around a woman being pushed down by male society or some other angle that the answer is already known, the details just need to be filled in?

I'm not saying straight up "historians" don't have their biases. I'm just questioning how seriously I can take someone's scholarship when an attempt at objectivity is disregarded right off the bat.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2009, 10:58 PM
And you are assuming that because someone claims that they are a feminist historian, or a Marxist historian, or any other preceding "adjective" that they are going to axiomatically be intellectually dishonest. That's a logical leap.

The fact of the matter is that every theoritician is going to have an "ism" attached to them.

If you think for a fraction of a minute that those adjectives do NOT affect their biases....you are not nearly as bright as I've come to assume you are.

Every "theoritician" has an --ism attached to them, including your favs.

:)

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 01:24 AM
If you think for a fraction of a minute that those adjectives do NOT affect their biases....you are not nearly as bright as I've come to assume you are.

Every "theoritician" has an --ism attached to them, including your favs.

:)

I never said that they didn't. But to assume that some have it and others don't because they are more willing to label themselves a certain way is just foolish.

It's also naive to think that you can flush anything that someone wants to say down the toilet because of the viewpoint from which they come. That's just an argument for intellectual laziness.

It's your responsibility to glean the necessary information and filter out any things that you find unsatisfactory. That's precisely why we teach critical thinking skills in the academy. You aren't just supposed to usurp everything you read with no questions, that's why we have discussion and debate within seminars.

Otherwise, you end up with a much of Taco Johns.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 01:32 AM
How? First of all, in some work, they, Marxist-historian Howard Zinn for example, straight up say that since perfect objectivity is impossible, they are just going to give their slant of history. Wow, thanks for the attempt.

Why should I not assume that a feminist historian will view things from a prism in which the story certainly revolves around a woman being pushed down by male society or some other angle that the answer is already known, the details just need to be filled in?

I'm not saying straight up "historians" don't have their biases. I'm just questioning how seriously I can take someone's scholarship when an attempt at objectivity is disregarded right off the bat.

It's not that they are destroying all objectivity and spinning you yarns, it's that they are making you full aware of the angle from which they approach their scholarship. They are not supposed to do all the work for you. It's not their job to think for you.

It's pretty myopic to condemn people for admitting that they have a theoretical framework from which they analyze history while simultaneously giving a pass to others who don't share what theirs is.

You are at the point in your educational career in which you should know that education is not a process by which dead guys fill in your tabula rasa for you, it's a dialectical process. Take conflicting accounts, analyze their individual merits, and find a synthesis. Use different approaches to historiography to find out what really happened. Augment your thought process with more than just one person's viewpoint.

You'll never learn everything about politics by reading Thomas Frank, you might have to read Thomas Sowell too, even if you don't agree with him. It's the amalgamation of those two that represents true independent thought.

As to your middle paragraph, a feminist would respond, "That's typical." In essence you've basically condemned their entire thought process and marginalized them because they call themselves feminists. You aren't even attempting to perform any kind of analysis of what they say. You just dismiss it outright. In many ways, it echoes the cries of misogynists who paint everyone who calls themselves a feminist as a man-hating lesbian who doesn't shave their pits.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 01:47 AM
Jenson, here's an example:

For a long period of time, you had T.S. Eliot in your signature. Eliot has been widely accused, both fairly and unfairly, of being an anti-Semite. He also held wildly conservative political views.

Furthermore, the man who basically made The Wasteland comprehensible, Ezra Pound, was Eliot's mentor...he also read radio messages in support of Facism during the War.

I could use either one as a reason to dismiss any of their approaches to literary theory or criticism, but you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 01:49 AM
It's not that they are destroying all objectivity and spinning you yarns, it's that they are making you full aware of the angle from which they approach their scholarship. They are not supposed to do all the work for you. It's not their job to think for you.

Fully aware? Not really. They are making me aware from the start of the particular angle they want to stress. They don't have to think for me, but that doesn't mean they have no responsbilities except to give their spin. No, a historian has a responsbility to look for the entire truth of a matter, not just give one particular slant to it and hope that some other scholar who needs to fill their resume looks at it from an opposing slant thus coming to some "middle of the road" agreement as to what really happened.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 01:56 AM
Fully aware? Not really. They are making me aware from the start of the particular angle they want to stress. They don't have to think for me, but that doesn't mean they have no responsbilities except to give their spin. No, a historian has a responsbility to look for the entire truth of a matter, not just give one particular slant to it and hope that some other scholar who needs to fill their resume looks at it from an opposing slant thus coming to some "middle of the road" agreement as to what really happened.

Once again, you are assuming that they are going to have a slant. Having a slant and having a focus are completely disparate entities.

You know what a feminist historian would do? They would look at the paucity of women artists during the Renaissance and say "Hmmm, I wonder if any women were active then?" And then they would do research, and their research would elucidate what did or did not happen.

They aren't going to invent Donatella out of the ether.

You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss them offhand. It's lazy and dishonest. You are ventriloquizing what you want them to do instead of actually understanding what they do.

Again, I will repost:

As to your middle paragraph, a feminist would respond, "That's typical." In essence you've basically condemned their entire thought process and marginalized them because they call themselves feminists. You aren't even attempting to perform any kind of analysis of what they say. You just dismiss it outright. In many ways, it echoes the cries of misogynists who paint everyone who calls themselves a feminist as a man-hating lesbian who doesn't shave their pits.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 01:59 AM
Oh well she's a feminist historian, therefore there is no way that she can view anything objectively compared to Historian A, B, or C.

That's bullshit. Bias is not endemic to feminism, nor are the biases of feminist historians universal, nor are they any more plentiful than in any other discipline.*

For the case of this argument, feminism could be supplanted by nearly any other approach, you just happen to take offense to this one.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:14 AM
Once again, you are assuming that they are going to have a slant. Having a slant and having a focus are completely disparate entities.

I certainly am assuming they have a slant. Again, I stress that the feminist historian is not like the 'historian of feminism,' it is the historian with a feminist agenda throughout their research. The slant is that their work aims to promote the feminist agenda, or whatever they view the feminist agenda should be.

They would look at the paucity of women artists during the Renaissance and say "Hmmm, I wonder if any women were active then?" And then they would do research, and their research would elucidate what did or did not happen.

That seems like something the historian can do without being a feminist.

You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss them offhand. It's lazy and dishonest. You are ventriloquizing what you want them to do instead of actually understanding what they do.

I'm not looking anymore. I think I've found it. The feminist historian, the Marxist historian, the capitalist historian, dismisses objectivity and truth as so unattainable the effort is not worth trying. I disagree profusely.

As to your middle paragraph, a feminist would respond, "That's typical." In essence you've basically condemned their entire thought process and marginalized them because they call themselves feminists. You aren't even attempting to perform any kind of analysis of what they say.

Correct. On the basis of their methods, which I try to understand and make sense of, I soon decide their work is not worth my effort of reading.

Count Zarth
03-25-2009, 02:17 AM
I like to debate people if there is an opportunity.

God you annoy me.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:19 AM
You and your approaches to literature, Hamas. You are a fine and well trained English student. I know how important all the perspectives are in your field. But that stuff doesn't fly in History.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:20 AM
God you annoy me.

Shut the fuck up.

Count Zarth
03-25-2009, 02:21 AM
But why? Let's debate over it.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:27 AM
I will take you at your word that I annoy you. You can't really debate commands like "Shut the fuck up" -- there is no premise claimed.

Count Zarth
03-25-2009, 02:32 AM
So claim it's just something you want, and not something I need to do?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 02:35 AM
Correct. On the basis of their methods, which I try to understand and make sense of, I soon decide their work is not worth my effort of reading.

You don't even know anything about it. You are extrapolating one hour? of time at a feminist conference and the responses of a few people as being indicative of all that is and will ever be feminism?

You still haven't even correctly asserted what feminist historiography is. It's an attempt to properly situate women within history. Where have they been left out? Where have they been pushed to the margins? What would a woman's history look like? You can call that "history" as a whole, and it is, but that's like me saying that Beowulf, Rimbaud, and Gravity's Rainbow are identical because they are both written works.

I don't want to be dismissive with you, but you aren't exactly being open minded. You think that you are able to encapsulate all of what feminist theory is and you know absolutely nothing about it. Please, read some of the sources that I posted for you. Be skeptical, but not dismissive.

While you're at it, read some Gerda Lerner, The Majority Finds its Past. I can give you other examples of specific feminist historiography, but before you dismiss it outright, at least attempt to read it.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:39 AM
So claim it's just something you want, and not something I need to do?

No, that is something I want. I want you to shut the fuck up. It would be more if I said "You need to shut the fuck up." You could say, "Why?" I would said "Because I will punch you in the face if you do not." But I don't need you to, and I wouldn't punch you.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 02:54 AM
You still haven't even correctly asserted what feminist historiography is. It's an attempt to properly situate women within history. Where have they been left out? Where have they been pushed to the margins? What would a woman's history look like? You can call that "history" as a whole, and it is, but that's like me saying that Beowulf, Rimbaud, and Gravity's Rainbow are identical because they are both written works.

I do wonder what the exact difference in your view is between the feminist historian and the historian of women. To me, there is a clear difference.

Okay, now "properly situate women within history." You have that bolded, and I am wondering if you got that from somewhere, or if that's your interpretation of feminist history.

It begins with the assumption that women are not properly situated within history. They have been misplaced, overlooked, and left behind. We have two ideas here: one is that women have been held down by a patriarchal society. Another is that women were more important to history than what our understanding of history says that are (therefore, requiring more time studying them). The conflict between these two ideas is alarming. How important could women be to history, in general, if they were essentially powerless? But the feminist wants to what? Not only explain their situation (which any historian worth his weight should be able to do) but also to elevate their status, to "properly situate them." Maybe their proper place in history is essentially nowhere in the pages of it, with some exceptions to the rule. Instead of rewriting the library, wouldn't their absence essentially show us that it was a male dominated society? And can't we learn from that just as much as overexaggerating their importance, and never lose track of the truth?

These are some unclear thoughts so far. It's early/late, so I'm not paying too much attention here.

Let's take the Greeks. The Greeks were an amazing society. Any history student knows that and know why. But the Greeks were sexist to an unbelievable measure. Even probably in their own time standards. How would the feminist historian view the Greeks? I can't see him/her being too receptive, although there is so much there that demands it. But from his or her own political ideology, the Greeks had to be one of the worst societies this earth has seen. And the ultimate determination rests on that fact above all others.

Thanks for the replies so far, Hamas. I appreciate them. And I will take a long some time or other through the reading.

Count Zarth
03-25-2009, 03:01 AM
No, that is something I want.

We could still debate over why I won't shut the fuck up, if you like?

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 03:08 AM
I suspect you won't shut the fuck up because you are like me and refuse to do anything more productive than talking online to others. And debating over whether that's right or not is not that interesting to me. I would rather just be wrong than go into it much.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 03:10 AM
But Clayton, I do want you to know that I'm honored you have decided to post in my thread here. I trust you realize that my earlier comment should not have been taken seriously at all.

Count Zarth
03-25-2009, 03:20 AM
It's all good bro. I'd attend a feminist conference, but only for the entertainment.

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 07:49 AM
Because they discuss their own culture?

I don't think the Cherokees included much about the Inuits. So your correct about the dominant culture.

BEP, you miss the point...We were talking about American history. Did the continent magically form in 1492?

Jenson was talking about history and truth...my comment is/was that "truth" in history is hidden behind the facade of the dominent culture.

patteeu
03-25-2009, 08:47 AM
I'm detecting cracks in Jenson71's naive socialistic outlook. He's looking around and seeing that he's surrounded by kooks with nonsensical ideas. Our Jenson71 is growing up! It brings a tear to my eye. ;)

patteeu
03-25-2009, 08:47 AM
But did you get any pussy?

LMAO

patteeu
03-25-2009, 08:53 AM
This deserves a thread of its own. I am not in love with hyphenated scholars either, but to suggest that the dominant segment in any given culture does not slant history to its advantage is naive.

I suspect you are a historian...do you think your view of American events would be different if you had read history from an Indian perspective?

For example, Cahokia IL moundbuilders had a population as large as London or Paris in 1300. They were a complex society, complete with priests, politics, etc. Not one in 100 high school or college texts discuss this civilization. Why?

Partly because they didn't leave behind any books, I'd imagine. I'm not arguing with your point about dominant segments of cultures dominating though.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 09:02 AM
BEP, you miss the point...We were talking about American history. Did the continent magically form in 1492?

Jenson was talking about history and truth...my comment is/was that "truth" in history is hidden behind the facade of the dominent culture.

Well, if I did, I swear I was agreeing with you.

Reaper16
03-25-2009, 09:25 AM
"If you're not a feminist, you should kill yourself." -- Margaret Cho

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 10:02 AM
Well, if I did, I swear I was agreeing with you.

eh, maybe I'm just an idiot...:)

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 11:17 AM
By the way, I just have to share this. I am grading papers from students (juniors in college) this morning. One of the classes that I sometimes teach is an interdisciplinary liberal arts class outside my expertise - but still valuable.

Anyway, this paragraph, from an "A" student was typed in a paper I just graded....

"I never realized what the Trail of Tears was until your lecture. In fact I found your lecture hard to believe until I went to the library and checked out a book on the topic. How the hell have I gone through 15 years of school and never heard about this?"

Draw your own conclusions about how history is written....and taught.

Sully
03-25-2009, 11:21 AM
By the way, I just have to share this. I am grading papers from students (juniors in college) this morning. One of the classes that I sometimes teach is an interdisciplinary liberal arts class outside my expertise - but still valuable.

Anyway, this paragraph, from an "A" student was typed in a paper I just graded....

"I never realized what the Trail of Tears was until your lecture. In fact I found your lecture hard to believe until I went to the library and checked out a book on the topic. How the hell have I gone through 15 years of school and never heard about this?"

Draw your own conclusions about how history is written....and taught.

I've got a damn degree in history, and there is STILL so much "common hisotrical knowledge" that I have never been exposed to. It's almost embarrassing.

A History degree is nothing more than a research degree, with a little history thrown in.

Iowanian
03-25-2009, 11:41 AM
Its always fun watching Jenson and Hamas sipping lattes in their turtle necks and berrets, playing thesaurus pong through the coffee house window.


Ping...."axiom"

Pong......."amicable"

Ping..."paradigm"

Pong...."Ennui"

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 12:43 PM
I had a midwife...until I didn't need her due to c-section. She did all her births, 5 of them at home on her living room floor with the kids and daddy participating. Then she ground the placenta up in a blender and made smoothies for everyone.

She was no feminist though.LMAO

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 01:03 PM
I'm detecting cracks in Jenson71's naive socialistic outlook. He's looking around and seeing that he's surrounded by kooks with nonsensical ideas. Our Jenson71 is growing up! It brings a tear to my eye. ;)

Patteeu,

Einstein was pretty grown up. He was also a socialist. He thought it was a good compromise between the extremes of capitalism and communism.

just saying :)

patteeu
03-25-2009, 02:02 PM
Patteeu,

Einstein was pretty grown up. He was also a socialist. He thought it was a good compromise between the extremes of capitalism and communism.

just saying :)

It's not surprising that such a mistake prone fellow would fall for such a thing. Hopefully, Jenson71 will be more level headed when he grows up:

Albert Einstein got it wrong. Not once, not twice, but countless times. He made subtle blunders, he made outright goofs, his oversights were glaring. Error infiltrated every aspect of his thinking. He was wrong about the universe, wrong about its contents, wrong about the workings of atoms.

...

Einstein’s blunders reveal the unique mind behind his winning thoughts. Einstein’s mistakes get upstaged by a few of his good ideas. Still, his errors deserve scrutiny, and not just for the schadenfreude. “There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition . . . can reach them,” Einstein said. In retrospect, however, his discoveries seem eminently logical. Only his errors preserve the doubts, quirks, and prejudices that fed his intuition. If his triumphs describe how the universe works, then his mistakes describe how he worked. Discover Magazine, September 2004 (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes)

:p

RaiderH8r
03-25-2009, 02:34 PM
Its always fun watching Jenson and Hamas sipping lattes in their turtle necks and berrets, playing thesaurus pong through the coffee house window.


Ping...."axiom"

Pong......."amicable"

Ping..."paradigm"

Pong...."Ennui"

It's like watching an episode of Frasier without the funny.

RaiderH8r
03-25-2009, 02:44 PM
More to the point, women don't deserve equal pay until they start paying for equal shit. Movies-man pays, dinner-man pays, Valentine's day-man pays, all we ask for in return is a little polish of the knob and even then trying to get them to swallow is like asking for their first born child for a blood sacrifice. Jesus Christ ladies, get over yourselves and take one down the gullet from time to time.

The women's liberation movement doesn't extend to the realm of inconveniencing women. I.E. when it comes to moving the sofa bed they have no problem playing up the damsel just so some dumb schmuck busts his back lugging all her shit around on a Sunday.

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 03:11 PM
It's not surprising that such a mistake prone fellow would fall for such a thing. Hopefully, Jenson71 will be more level headed when he grows up:



:p

touche' :D

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 03:13 PM
Its always fun watching Jenson and Hamas sipping lattes in their turtle necks and berrets, playing thesaurus pong through the coffee house window.

*high pitched forced chuckle* Mmhm, yes, I find this post quite shallow and nescient. Now good day, sir!

Iowanian
03-25-2009, 04:29 PM
Oh Lilith, Surely you gest!

"opulent"

.....Austere

oh yeah....."idiom"

Well, "copacetic"

"Your berret is opulent and your advanced chivalry leads barbarians such as iowanian to produce tumultuous posts"


BEHOLD Unsophisticants! View my Omniscient Brainpower!!! My mere flatulence advances humanity to another level of sophistication and enlightened thinking!

Reaper16
03-25-2009, 04:41 PM
One gets berated for using polysyllabic words now? That's cute.

Iowanian
03-25-2009, 04:50 PM
Reaper, you'd better grab your mac notebook and head on down to the java hut before all of the good seats for tonights presentation on the negative effects of hair conditioner on the gulf coast environement.

I think you've missed the point. thats cute.

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 05:08 PM
Kooks. And people wonder why taxpayers resist increases for education when this is what we have on campus'.

Reaper16
03-25-2009, 05:28 PM
Reaper, you'd better grab your mac notebook and head on down to the java hut before all of the good seats for tonights presentation on the negative effects of hair conditioner on the gulf coast environement.

I think you've missed the point. thats cute.
Fuck the Gulf Coast. I use a PC, don't drink coffee, and use conditioner.

Iowanian
03-25-2009, 07:33 PM
Thats just a completely uninformed and intollerable position to take reaper.

Please join myself and a small herd of non-shaving/deodorizing women as we take a few hours to yuvulate upon the old growth forest tree of woe.


My white guilt is almost too much to bare, therefor I must repent in any non-traditional way available to me.

RaiderH8r
03-26-2009, 08:24 AM
Oh Lilith, Surely you gest!

"opulent"

.....Austere

oh yeah....."idiom"

Well, "copacetic"

"Your berret is opulent and your advanced chivalry leads barbarians such as iowanian to produce tumultuous posts"


BEHOLD Unsophisticants! View my Omniscient Brainpower!!! My mere flatulence advances humanity to another level of sophistication and enlightened thinking!

Here's the deal I'm the best there is. Plain and simple. I wake up in the morning and I piss excellence

oldandslow
03-26-2009, 09:05 AM
Thats just a completely uninformed and intollerable position to take reaper.

Please join myself and a small herd of non-shaving/deodorizing women as we take a few hours to yuvulate upon the old growth forest tree of woe.


My white guilt is almost too much to bare, therefor I must repent in any non-traditional way available to me.

You need to spell "bear" correctly...they have a dictionary on campus :D.

PunkinDrublic
04-02-2009, 11:47 AM
Did you ask them if they think the answers to their problems could be solved with some deep dicking?

Reaper16
04-02-2009, 02:35 PM
Did you ask them if they think the answers to their problems could be solved with some deep dicking?
You revived the thread because you just couldn't let that zinger go unnoticed?

PunkinDrublic
04-04-2009, 12:00 PM
You revived the thread because you just couldn't let that zinger go unnoticed?

Yeah I was little dissappointed going through the whole thread and not seeing anybody post it so I kind of felt obligated.