FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » How about feminism?

   
Author Topic: How about feminism?
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
I've been curious about this for sometime now, and reading the homosexuality thread I've become even more interested... what is OSC's stance on modern feminism? [Big Grin]

(Forgive me if this has already been discussed.)

~M

Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
mg,
Why don't you give your own impressions of modern feminism, what it is and how you think it bodes for our society? I think we'd find that interesting.

I think only OSC could really do justice to his stance on modern feminism, but I can provide a gross oversimplification and say he is against it.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I suspect you'd have to define "modern feminism" first.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Or you could always read Enchantment. I'd say you owe yourself that in any case.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
[Razz] Okay then!

Although I'm a young female I am an anti-feminist. I do believe there are gender inequalities, but I also believe that men and women suffer equally from gender stereotyping. While in the past women have been expected to be docile and subservient, men have had the burden of being the sole providers for the family. Men are also expected to be strong under all circumstances and stoical, and so it bothers me when feminists rant and rave about the "silence of women."

Not that traditional roles are wrong in all cases. I do believe that if you enjoy your traditional gender role- by all means, live the kind of life that suits you. If you stay at home with the kids while your husband controls the finances, or if you have the natural tendency to behave in a way that's characteristic of your gender, great for you. For some feminists, however, being an at-home mom regardless of whether or not you enjoy it is submitting yourself to the patriarchy.

Also, if feminism was about breaking down gender boundaries for *everyone*, then why is it that feminism places blame on men, and focuses solely on women's issues? If both genders suffer, then there are no winners or losers. Feminism pits men (the perpetrators) against women (the victims).

I also dislike feminism for the fact that it promotes victimization, instead of practicing what it preaches- and that is self-reliance. It seems feminists enjoy complaining about the way men make them feel when, if they were truly liberated, they wouldn't give two shits what some stupid man did or said to them. Or how an advertisement in a magazine made them ashamed of their body. True feminism would encourage you to *rise above that.*

Not to say there are "true feminists" out there. I applaud those who don't bask in anger toward men. I've known many self-professed feminists who are great role models, who truly think for themselves and accept responsibility for their actions. I'm only criticizing the leaders of the movement, whose ideals are of the extreme. And it is from their beliefs that most of modern feminism's wars begin. I also criticize those who feed into their victim ideology.

Now that I've said all that, I would LOVE to know what OSC's thoughts are. I've read bits and pieces of his opinion on the subject, but nothing too in depth.

~M

Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mothertree:
Or you could always read Enchantment. I'd say you owe yourself that in any case.

I have, and along with Homecoming it peaked my curiosity. I wish to know MORE!
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alluvion
Member
Member # 7462

 - posted      Profile for alluvion   Email alluvion         Edit/Delete Post 
*bump*
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
In general, you can safely assume that if it's a modern opinion, OSC is firmly against it. [Smile] If it's really popular, he believes it's destroying the country. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
MG, I don't think that is an accurate representative of all aspects of feminism, but it does show the annoying simplistic kind that rants and raves about the patriarchy as if it is some actual group that exists just to keep so-called traditional values.
I think it's more subtle than that. Somethings are still engrained into our culture. Feminism is an interesting concept, a useful one. We probably would not have met certain goals without it, but now it has to be taken to another level. Not all feminists are that simple...
But, they do have a point when it comes to victimhood, it does exist in our society, the violence and cruely, but it's not just aimed at women exclusively.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shan
Member
Member # 4550

 - posted      Profile for Shan           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm against the premise of the "superwoman" who can do it all . . . both bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan, and never let you forget who's the man . . . *snort*

lay that at the feet of advertising, if you'd like, however, I have very clear memories of my mother "doing it all" while the king and master had donw all he needed to do because he may or may not have brought home the paycheck . . . or my grandmothers needing permission to work outside the home, which was considered shameful, while still promising to keep up with all the child-rearing and household duties. Which in those days really were a full-time job all on their own. The clothing was homemade, the garden and fields and livestock provided the food and -

oh never mind -

There is nothing wrong with femaleness, the belief that being a female corresponds with intelligence, competence, capacity, strength, ability and nurture. There is nothing wrong with men being valued for those same things: intelligence, competence, capacity, strength, and nurture.

I, for one, do NOT want to go back even 25 years ago wherein every idea I had for what I thought I might like to do with my life was shot down because only "men" could do it. And my ex-husband, raised in that old school of thought certainly seemed to have and try to live out the same sort of belief system. So, it hasn't died out. And watching the "pop" culture of today, I don't see it getting any better - if anything, women are becoming even more objectified again. Yuck.

I don't suppose it would be possible for our culture to learn to respect and value that all people bring their own skills and abilities to this world (talents, if you will) that are not necessarily sex-linked and therefore pre-determined?

*wistful hope*

Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote from Tom:

"In general, you can safely assume that if it's a modern opinion, OSC is firmly against it. If it's really popular, he believes it's destroying the country. *grin*"

I pretty much agree with the first sentence. Do you think that the second sentence is an exaggeration? Except for Card's thoughts on psychology a la Freud and Jung, maybe.

[ May 25, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: steven ]

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, have you got PMS? Or are you just hungry for attention?

Though now that I think about it, I'm almost certain that you've said that if something is commonly sought after, it's a pretty sure bet that it was crap. You could help me out here. Was it milk chocolate or something of more importance? Like Homestarrunner?

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Portabello
Member
Member # 7710

 - posted      Profile for Portabello   Email Portabello         Edit/Delete Post 
[Laugh]
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I mostly hate and despise writers like John Gray who make millions of dollars pumping out stupid stereotypes.
He makes me so mad, and those Rules women!

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Though now that I think about it, I'm almost certain that you've said that if something is commonly sought after, it's a pretty sure bet that it was crap."

Yep. [Smile]
I'm not criticizing Scott for concentrating his vitriol on things that are both modern and popular. I'm just pointing out that this is what he does. *grin* He is by no means unique in that regard.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Feminism is in something of a limbo right now. Some of the people who would have described themselves as feminists twenty or thirty years ago now refer to themselves as post-feminists, or reject any kind of label at all. Some of what is derided in feminism is only accurate in a pretty far-fringe segment of those so described. One hundred years ago, believing women deserved the right to vote was radical. Fifty years ago, believing women should have the opportunity to rise above secretarial, teaching, and nursing positions was unusual (since they were probably just going to leave the job when they got married, har har.) Today there is still a real need for something like feminism, because women still don't always get the opportunities men do, and still aren't always taken seriously when they pursue certain fields. That doesn't necessarily mean ascribing to an anti-heterosexual, anti-marriage, anti-religion, "down with the invisible patriarchy" stance, but that is what is described as feminism by many these days.

I think the idea that men and women are equally good but significantly different is still pretty hard to get across these days, between those who say everything has fallen apart with the disintegration of the good ol' traditional gender roles and the few vocal radical feminists, both of whom claim to represent far more people than they actually do.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alluvion
Member
Member # 7462

 - posted      Profile for alluvion   Email alluvion         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't suppose it would be possible for our culture to learn to respect and value that all people bring their own skills and abilities to this world (talents, if you will) that are not necessarily sex-linked and therefore pre-determined?
It's probably possible, but that sort of progression is inhibited by the preservation of roles played in a society that enable those in power to retain that power.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yozhik
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Yozhik   Email Yozhik         Edit/Delete Post 
*pokes Tom with a stick*
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scooter
Member
Member # 6915

 - posted      Profile for Scooter   Email Scooter         Edit/Delete Post 
alluvion--

Your assumption has a similar effect of slowing progress in that it oversimplifies and misrepresents the debate in SOME if not MANY or MOST cases. Your assumption also has legitimacy, but only with narrow application. Thus, your assumptions slows the debate/discussion by assigning negative/nasty/indefensible intentions to a common belief/value system when one's intentions are often much different but now more difficult for one to defend because of the over-application of your assumption.

That all sounds like a tongue twister, but I hope you follow my point.

Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alluvion
Member
Member # 7462

 - posted      Profile for alluvion   Email alluvion         Edit/Delete Post 
thank's scooter. you're right.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Starsnuffer
Member
Member # 8116

 - posted      Profile for Starsnuffer   Email Starsnuffer         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with feminism is that the ideas, like memory's, that are reasonable and fairly sound are also very quiet for precisely the same reasons. The things that everyone hears are the radical feminists who go on ranting that they're being oppressed and men are all evil. Most people aren't concerned enough to listen hard and hear the good ideas, they just hear the radicals and say "God, what a bunch of loonies, they just want everything their way". Anyways, that's my two cents.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yozhik
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Yozhik   Email Yozhik         Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, Starsnuffer, are you a Diane Duane fan?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
The things that everyone hears are the radical feminists who go on ranting that they're being oppressed and men are all evil.

I've known many a non-radical feminist who believes women are oppressed. Even moderate, mainstream feminists buy into that idea.
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Starsnuffer
Member
Member # 8116

 - posted      Profile for Starsnuffer   Email Starsnuffer         Edit/Delete Post 
But oppressed seems like too harsh a word. I guess it is opression but I dont see it to be a huge problem, something that should change yes, but a pressing need not necessarily. And no Yozhik, I sorta almost recognize the name but I'm not a "fan?" of hers.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joshua Newberry
Member
Member # 7864

 - posted      Profile for Joshua Newberry   Email Joshua Newberry         Edit/Delete Post 
I do not agree with the commonplace type of feminism everyone knows about--the so-called feminism of similarities--that are used as a means to make women into being exactly like men, and entitled to all the same rights and privileges therein. These feminists tend to neglect such things as differing body builds (natural difference) and the psychological differences between (standard) men and women. I am, however, drawn to the views of a feminism of differences, which not only is able to work through the differences encountered and not addressed by the vacuous types of the beginning of my post, but move on to celebrate the differences between the sexes.

Of these writers, I have encountered a couple I recommend, though their views are not for those who dislike anything seriously philosophical (and I mean something other than faddish Sartre or Derrida) These writers are Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva, both Europeans and both feminists of difference. Kristeva's work is more of the seriously-philosophical, whereas Irigaray's work is often representative in form of the views she prevents in the piece (for example, she wrote a paper called "Questions" in which the entire essay was in questions). Both are arguing along the same lines, though Kristeva may be a bit more easy to digest on your own.

One of the main points I definitely agree with in relation to this philosophy is that of privileged abilities--simply put, that though men and women do have things that make them stronger in certain areas than others, this does not mean that women cannot become like men, nor the reverse. For the most part, this idea came about because of the types of relations each gender holds--men are more visual, setting their objects of desire apart from them, showing dominance in the way there is an observer and an observed; women are more tactile, preferring to hold their objects close, so that there is no difference between the toucher and the touched (both are touching each other and being touched by one another).

An interesting read, regardless of how you view feminism. There seem to be elements of truth within the "system" and certainly positive aspects to the evolution towards society this type of knowledge would foster.

Posts: 57 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
romanylass
Member
Member # 6306

 - posted      Profile for romanylass   Email romanylass         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to say that I have a very different impression of femnism than the one you describe, mg. I think it's rarely accurate characterise any group by their extremists. I have always liked the quote "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
When I was in college, I helped bring a speaker to the Universtity who called her speech, "A Feminist Perspective on Abortion." Her point was that the pro-life position was more feminist than the pro-choice position.

We were protested, I was threatened in phone calls, and our posters were torn down. Someone introduced a motion in Student Council to yank our funding (this was after they had refused to fund our magazine). It didn't get a second. Someone called me a liar, and I told him to bring me up on honor charges if that's what he thought. He didn't take me up on it. One of the newspaper columnists challenged me to a debate and backed out on it.

It was heady times. A regional director of Planned Parenthood threatened to sue me. I told her that I happened to have one of the best first amendment lawyers in the country on my speed dial.

Of all the things I did, sponsoring a speaker that claimed that feminism didn't require support for legalized abortion was the one that generated the most virulent response. That's really saying something. [Smile]

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
It mystifies me that people think such tactics could make them look like anything but the badguys. "I'm going to sue you for disagreeing with me!" "OH, okay, I can see NOW that your position is absolutely correct." I mean, what the crap? [Smile]
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Apparantly they thought I could be intimidated.

I can be. But by a guy in a ski mask holding a chain saw. Not by a threatened law suit. There was no bad outcome possible for me - even if I lost, it just would have guaranteed me a really good fellowship while I wrote my book. [Smile]

I was such a troublemaker in college.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shan
Member
Member # 4550

 - posted      Profile for Shan           Edit/Delete Post 
Rats - I was just going to point out what a rabble rouser you were, Dags! *grin*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by romanylass:
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

I think that quotation is radical in itself, and promotes victimization. Who says non-feminists don't view women as people? And why would a mere notion need it's own social movement?

~Mariann

Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
memory_guilded
Member
Member # 8092

 - posted      Profile for memory_guilded   Email memory_guilded         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, Dagonee! That's an amazing story, and I think it's a great example of the radicalism that fuels the feminist movement.
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the Professor
Member
Member # 5319

 - posted      Profile for the Professor   Email the Professor         Edit/Delete Post 
Mariann, welcome to the isl-- forum. [Wave]

I usually go by "Morbo" at Hatrack.

You have an interesting viewpoint on feminism.

I think in many ways feminism is a victim of it's own success, similar to the way that civil rights organizations and unions are no longer as urgently needed as they once were.

American society is much more gender-neutral than it once was. Women can vote, sue for wage discrimination and sexual harassment, have more reproductive freedom, have more legal protection from domestic violence and sexual assault, and generally women have things better than they once did, politically and socially. All of these rights were fought for and won by feminists, mainly.

Which may have lead to complacency and a backlash against feminist activism, similar to the anti-union sentiment that has grown in the past generation, after unions won major concessions from government and industry.

I saw a new phrase in the paper the other day: "the paradox of the contented female worker." short ny times story (no need to register, it's a 3rd party website [Smile] )

While I was looking for that newspaper story online, I found this:
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ --an anti-feminist site, apparently mainly for religious reasons.

Posts: 111 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
Urgh. Modern gender feminists get a lot of validation from being confused with earlier equity feminists. These terms I read in the economist: "gender feminists" are about promoting abortion, and use blaming men in their rhetoric; "equity feminists" are about equal rights. Equity feminists also get called "pod feminists," implying that like the monsters in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, they look like feminists but aren't really.

It's the equity feminists that got the things that the Professor credits feminists for, above; but it's gender feminists who now take the credit. Gender feminists aren't a victim of equity feminists' success; they're free riders on it.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
1135813
Member
Member # 7816

 - posted      Profile for 1135813   Email 1135813         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe that many "gender feminists" are using the ideological structure of radical feminism to provide a channel/justification for anger that they already had in their system. That is certainly what I did. If this is so, then gender feminism is just another form of the dehumanization of the Other. It's okay to blame men for everything, because they oppressed us first. Obviously, this is intolerant and inaccurate. However, this is no justification for turning around and dehumanizing feminists, as so many modern media moguls (and comedians) do. Just because their anger is indiscriminately directed doesn't mean that it's unfounded, or unjustified. I would say the same thing about homophobes.

Please excuse my excessivly thick tone. I have just finished writing my philosophy term paper.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2