Hi everyone :). I’m a student in university who’s studying political theory (basically philosophy) and our prof wants us to come up with a new social theory. I chose to focus on feminism (based on critical feminist theory), but I’m not sure if my male prof will think that my views are too extreme. I think that feminist theory is great in the sense that it’s multi-disciplinary and focuses on political, economic, and social spheres. However, I think modern feminism kind of plays into the patriarchy’s hands by defending sex work and abuse porn. I want to write about how the sex industry is harmful towards women, but I’m not sure if my prof will go “oh, but we can’t control women’s bodies 🤢”. Is this a safe topic to write about? I’m pursuing my honors degree and this essay is 40% of my grade, so I don’t want to write something so controversial that my male prof will fail me.
Are there any other aspects of feminist theory that I can critique (preferably, aspects that won’t be as controversial)?
This is the first actual philosophy class I’ve taken, so I’m pretty new to this subject. I’d be so grateful if you ladies could share your thoughts with me.
Are there any good leftist feminists that seek the goal of dismantling capitalism as a way in which to bring about equality? I've read Angela Davis' "Women, Race, and Class," what other leftist feminist theory is there that doesn't rely on staying in the bounds of liberalism and capitalism to achieve equality? Thanks !
Hi everyone, I need this book for my gender and law class, and I found it on Project Muse, but my school isn't affiliated with the site. This is a link to the book on the website. Any help will be greatly appreciated. http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9781439901366
Has anyone taken any classes with Madhavi Murty? Im really struggling in her class and am curious about her grading and how tough everything is
Hello everyone! I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this, but if it isn’t, please direct me to the best place to share this.
I am posting on mobile so my apologies for any weird formatting.
As the title states, I saw a job posting come up for a local queer and feminist company. The application stated that trans and non-binary people, and also BIPOC (Black and/or Indigenous people of color) are encouraged to apply. I will give background info on myself, and what I need help with specifically.
*Background info:
I am a trans, gender-nonconforming Indigenous person in Texas, US.
I have been transitioning for a few years now, but haven’t started the process of changing my legal name and gender marker due to safety and barriers from the state legislature. This has also been delayed by the pandemic, so name/gender change is unfortunately put off until further notice.
Being “out” has either resulted in workplace discrimination and harassment, or cost me job opportunities. As such, I have gone by my legal name and my assigned gender at birth in professional spaces. It sucks, but it’s what I’ve needed to do to survive so far.
*What I need help with:
I am trying to figure out how to format my resume and cover letter for this job posting. I am used to the typical formats for applications, but this is the first time I came across a position where I can apply as myself from the jump.
Here are some questions running through my head:
-Could I include my legal AND chosen name? Pronouns? Should I wait for the interview to disclose this?
-If people like me are encouraged to apply, wouldn’t I need to include my chosen name/pronouns somewhere? What about my being indigenous?
I am eager to apply and want to do so in the best way possible. It will be refreshing to work in a space where I don’t have to think twice about being “out” to my coworkers, so I want to make a good first impression here. Any input is appreciated!
TL;DR: Trans GNC Indigenous person needs advice on applying to a queer/trans friendly workspace. Legal documents don’t show chosen/name gender.
Edit: Some typos, formatting
You have lots of women who seem to only have eyes for a man who makes more money than them, yet ever since women entered the workforce, many have been making just as much money as the average man. This paradigm gets talked about quite often, not only on this sub but in the manosphere in general, attributing it to one of the many reasons for a strong male disadvantage in the dating market. But I don't think I've seen anyone examining a particular implication of this before, probably out of fear of sounding too sympathetic to feminists that support patriarchy theory.
Anyway...in essence, the selection criteria I described above clearly pushes the "eligible partners" more and more towards the apex of society. It is only natural then that if you're a woman with this criteria, it would of course seem like every man is making more money than you, because those are the only ones you paid attention to. Those are the ones you are dating and spending time with. You are forgetting all of the average Joes who by and large aren't more privileged than you because you're writing them off as ineligible partners.
I suppose this is only natural, of course people are going to remember things (and people) they liked or were attracted to for some reason more than those they weren't. If I sound too sympathetic then make no mistake, its still horrible to make false generalizations about society when they are in fact a result of your own choices distorting your worldview. I'm just saying, knowing human nature for both sexes being what it is, I can see why this would happen. For what it's worth, I think MGTOWS and redpillers fall into this same trap: being shallow, they often attract shallow women that only care about resources, and they generalize all women based on that just like feminists generalize all men based on their ex as well.
The wage gap (really an earnings gap) has been debunked before, but I think it's also important to acknowledge how sexual selection could be playing a role in this as well. If true, it means this is yet another example of people accusing men of nefarious intentions that are in fact caused by female choice, which feminists are supposed to respect.
I'm not exactly sure how best to phrase this question. But witches are in vogue as an allegory of feminism and men/patriarchy fearing woman. How does this interpretation hold up to historical/empirical scrutiny? And is the feminist historiography more nuanced than my understanding from social media?
Can anyone relate to this? Like I genuinely wonder if I don't like men or I'm just too much of a feminist to tolerate their stupid behaviour
I hate the dynamics of heterosexuality, I hate seeing my mom setting the table for her grown ass boyfriends, I hate hearing my uncles say that I'm gonna be less rebelious when I'm married to a man
I hate how men talk about women, I hate how women have to do all the emotional labor in a het relationship, I hate that men have bad hygiene and use 5-1 bodywash, I hate how men can impregnate a women and just leave, I hate how straight sex stereotypically starts and ends when the men decides to do so
So all of that makes me question if I'm genuinely lesbian or maybe I'm just a bisexual with a lot of prejudice towards our male colleagues........ idk this is kinda random
But I'm inclined to convice that I'm a lesbian considering the only context that I can tolerate men in is in fanfiction with unantainable celebrities lol
What authors/work/trends in feminist theory are you excited about at the moment? I'm looking for some compelling examples of contemporary feminist critique as one recently pointed out to me that the 70's and 80's are not necessarily 'contemporary' anymore :P
Secrets of the Silent Sisters: A (Somewhat) Legal Analysis of Feminist Organizing in Mainstream Westerosi Religion
Both in and out of the A Song of Ice and Fire universe, the order of the silent sisters are shrouded in mystery. They are caretakers of the dead in Westeros, a subset of the Faith of the Seven who wear solemn robes and take pious vows of chastity and silence. Besides that, readers know little about what it means to be a silent sister, especially not when compared to say, the Night’s Watch, an organization whose structure and history is explored in depth. However, what if the little information we do have is actually what makes the silent sisters one of the most fascinating organizations in the story? What if, in concert with tending to the dead, they also had a secondary, more secretive objective? This essay will explore how the aforementioned monastic trappings of the silent sisters — the veils, the vows — have fostered an environment conducive to feminist underground organizing. I believe the silent sisters have assisted (primarily, though perhaps not exclusively) women in Westeros escape from oppressive patriarchal rule, or at least find some reprieve from it.
On first glance, the silent sisters have a standard uniform for a monastic order. One dons the grey robes and grey cowl, with a grey veil to conceal the facial features, only the eyes revealed. The ostensible reason for the veil and cowl is because “it is considered ill-fortune to look upon the face of death” (Eddard VII, A Game of Thrones) and none are closer to death than the Strangers’ wives. The result of these two facts is a perfect disguise; not only are one's features masked, but popular superstitious myth considers it unlucky to even look at one’s face. If one wished to, say, abscond from a castle, one could do so by putting on the grey cowl and veil and blending in with the silent sisters. A castle guard dare not look upon the face of wife of the Stranger. Nor would he be able to question one, for who expects a silent sister to speak?
Contrary to being a self-sacrifice, I propose the vow of silence is actually meant to offer something to the silent sister — protection from self-incrimination. For followers of the U.S. Constitution, this would be akin to one’s Fifth Amendment right to not be a witness against oneself. Nobody can question a silent sister, unless one also has the power to release her from her vow. One might ask then, how do the silent sisters orga
... keep reading on reddit ➡https://hegelsbagels.net/posts/what-is-happening/
This is an interesting paper about some of the debates in feminism around the history of women and society. It's written from the feminist perspective by a feminist, but in many ways it argues against some of the issues that people in the men's community find troubling with feminism: patriarchy theory, and the post-structural or epistemological approach to history (which is the foundation for much of what we refer to as critical theory or "wokeism").
Patriarchy theory is of course the view that men work together to organize or control society to oppress women. And radical feminists have tried for a really long time to establish this as a fundamental pattern throughout all of human history.
The problem is this directly contradicts Marxist class theory, which posits that the ruling class oppresses the working class by extracting surplus value from them. In particular, the ruling class is made up of both men and women, and the working class is made up of both men and women. Men as a class do not oppress women as a class. And logically speaking, patriarchy theory and Marxist class theory cannot both be true at the same time.
At the core of the paper is an analysis of gender segregation during the rise of capitalism and industrialization in the UK. Many feminists have tried to make the argument that men saw women as natural enemies in the workplace and sought to pass legislation to limit competition and force women into a more subservient role at home.
There are many factual problems with this interpretation though. Most notably is the fact that female employment actually increased through most of the industrial revolution, and the fact that men usually enjoyed and preferred the company of women at work. And when feminists have found evidence of men supposedly flexing their muscles to force women out of the workplace, a more sober analysis usually finds other conclusions.
In particular, most of the cited examples come from the context of worker's rights and the broader socialist movement, where women and children often got the better end of the deal with protective legislation that often excluded men (who were sometimes part of the legislation during earlier drafts but then left out later). While it's true that this did have the effect of pushing some women out of the workforce and into the home, which did establish a kind of "patriarchal" division of labor that became stereotypical in middle class families in the 20th century, the author sees this as
... keep reading on reddit ➡Sorry, I couldn't screenshot cause I'm on my computer right now but yeah
