Usually I avoid the discussion of feminism because I come off sounding like I don’t care. This is far from the truth, but I find that my focus usually lies in rooting out what I don’t like or agree with in a piece; when that piece is feminist, my dislikes are often overemphasized. That being said, I found myself torn when I finished reading Watkins’ piece. Perhaps this is because I was unable as a child to “construct an identity that is not rooted in sexism”, which my has “murdered [my] soul” and left me “as lost as many boys” (70,71).
I like Watkins’ rhetorical approach to redefine feminism instead of just launching into what needs to be changed. She is especially effective when pointing out possible mistakes in early feminism and projecting a possible future that would have been more positive if these mistakes had not been made. Her obvious intension is to imply that if strategies such as converting men and young boys to the cause are adopted, the feminist movement may be more successful in the future. I think she is also very careful not to make broad claims that can be easily undermined. Her points about class and race are pointed as quickly supported with specific examples.
It is not, however, my favorite piece. I think a more direct title for this piece could be “Class and Feminism.” I would go so far as to say that this piece should be read in conjunction with Althusser. In each of her chapters, be it parenting, women in the workplace, or issues of race, class is stated as the root problem entrenched in the internal mechanism of the feminist struggle. Here are a few examples from the first couple chapters.
Consciousness-Raising: Feminist consciousness has difficulty being raised in the university because “the academy was and remains a site of class privilege” (9). Sisterhood: “As long as women are using class or race power to dominate other women, feminist sisterhood cannot be fully realized” (16).
I was also a little disappointed in Watkins’ application of her thesis, “a movement to end sexism” (viii), to her chapter on “Beauty Within and Without.” I read the chapter twice to be sure, and no where in it does Watkins address male objectification. I know this sounds silly, but her entire premise is that she, as a promoter of “visionary feminist thinking” (5), is interested in eliminating ALL sexism, male or female. She does partially rectify this inadequacy in her chapter on “Feminist Masculinity”, but even here her focus is on identity and the vision of men seen by other men. She ignores the issue of male attractiveness being a basis upon which women judge men.
I have only two final notes to add to the blog; although, I am looking forward to listening : ) during the class discussion.
1. Does she really have to plug her book as having been an overlook masterwork in chapter 1?
2. Thanks for the shout-out to founding male feminists as having their motivations purely based on material basis rather than intellectual or ethical grounds: “Their [men] conversion to feminist thinking was often a matter of rising to meet the challenge of risking termination of intimate bonds” (68).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know how difficult it must be to be a man when confronting feminism, it's like a white person confronting race issues or the CEO of Walmart confronting capitalism, but I think that this is one thing that women, minorities and poor people have working against them. If we don't all look at these problems and hold up our Norma Rae sign we are just contributing to the problem (anyone see The Accused?).
ReplyDeleteMost of us grew up in gender biased households. Your language, however, suggests some derision toward a very sensitive topic. When you use the word "convert" to describe what you think Watkins sees as the solution, you imply that feminists want to indoctrinate young boys in order to turn them into feminist drones (feminists aren't the same as Scientologists). The truth is that Watkins thinks that boys and girls need to be raised in an environment free of gender biases in order to create a society free of sexism. Men and women can still choose to be jerks, but this way they aren't raised to be jerks.
In answer to the male gaze question...I think we're all aware of exploitation of women from the eyes of men, and I think that the answer to the question about men and women urging themselves into gyms and uncomfortable clothing in order to impress each other is that we are all to blame, and I think that Watkins is fairly unambiguous about that. We all need to take the responsibility to further the cause, and I think we are all agreed that there are plenty of men in the feminist corner (including one of my all-time heroes, Joss Whedon).
I'm really not certain where you got "founding male feminists as having their motivations based purely on material basis rather than intellectual or ethical grounds." Watkins says in the same paragraph, "From the onset of the movement there was a small group of men who recognized the feminist movement was as valid a movement for social justice [, which sounds like an appeal to ethics,] as all the other radical movements in our nation's history that men had supported" (68). Even intelligent men who live rightly took advantage of the benefits that being male provided them, and even you, I'm sure, take advantage, just as I take advantage of the benefits of race and class that I have. It is turning around and using those benefits to help others that makes us different from the conservative, anti-everything crowds who hold their signs upside down.
Interesting dialogue taking place here! Which from my perspective is exactly what needs to happen if sexist thinking (on both sides) is going to be altered. This exchange is taking place in the "academy" but hopefully will trickle down to the public school classroom and individual domestic inter-actions as well.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, Tony. If the idea of feminism is to completely eradicate sexism, I would think that the view of men would enter the argument at some point. If feminism is so harmful to me, why is there so little focus on them? I understand that they are the "dominate" individual in society, but, if sexism relates to both genders, wouldn't it affect both genders?
ReplyDeleteI look forward to class discussion. It should be...interesting...
I think some great points have been raised here. There is a definite lack of concern with the positive role men can, do, and should play in gaining real equality for both genders. While there were some occasional nods to males in this work there is still too little substance to what role men should have.
ReplyDeleteI suspect (and honestly hope) that this will be a *ahem* lively discussion on Tuesday.