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.
Hello! We're Neon Eye Productions Ltd., a film production company based in Edinburgh. We're currently working on our latest curation series 'Looking at Women', which has been written by History of Art and Art Practice student, Kathryn Cutler-MacKenzie. We thought the series might be of interest to readers of this page:
"This series is a 101 of feminist cinema that is accompanied by resources that lead into a more profound reading of the issue of female identity in artistic production. The aim of the curation is to provide the spectator and/or reader with a succinct and theoretically driven selection of films that deconstruct the sexually, socially and psychologically complicated identity of women in cinema (and beyond)." - Kathryn Cutler MacKenzie
The series begins with the role of the femme fatale in post war cinema and concludes with the role played by woman on screen during the 20th century. 11 films will be covered over the next 6 weeks, starting with Gilda and concluding with Cleo from 5-7.
https://www.neoneye.co.uk/gilda
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsoyLT4kyeHePFGiJ1V2FfQ?view_as=subscriber
We're looking for audience engagement with this series, particularly with the podcast discussion released every Thursday. At the end of the series we'll be hosting a live Q&A on YouTube where Kathryn and Neon Eye will discuss any comments that readers and viewers have in response to the films and film theory.
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 !
Hey creative people of The Fandomnatural! I am trying to write an essay on the new Feminist Film theory and how Supernatural incorporates elements of feminist reading in order to attract the female viewer to the otherwise male-oriented genre of the show (Horror, Western, Road-Movie), anyone worked on a similar idea? Any books you could suggest?
I watched Gunpowder Milkshake last night and mentioned it this morning to my male coworkers during chit chat before work.
The only other guy who had seen the movie was a 20-something and he responded by saying he turned it off after 15 minutes bc it was hardcore feminist. My boss immediately asked, "what's wrong with feminism?" At the same time I looked at him and asked, "but it's just woman perfectly playing parts commonly played by men. How is that hardcore feminist?"
He looked a little surprised and shrugged his shoulders but didn't have anything to say. I've been thinking about it all morning. I liked the movie well enough (gory action isn't one of my favorites but I wanted to support the female centered crew) and while I was watching I got the distinct impression the movie is a cookie cutter action film that was written just like all the rest but when all was said and done they replaced all the juicy parts normally reserved for men with woman. Nothing special. Nothing new. Except it starred badass woman wielding guns, knives and tomahawks.
I figure we have such stringent expectations and perceptions of woman that when they break out of those molds and find purchase in a 'mans' space people get a funny taste in their mouth. Some people get angry, some bewildered and some secretly cheer. Very few are openly supportive. But what do I know I'm just a woman working as an industrial electrician. 👷♀️
Edit: Thank you for the awards kind strangers. I did not expect this to blow the fudge up but I'm pleased to have started a discussion. Hollywood pay attention and stop cheaping out!!
Okay so men perving this post need to get a life. If you're not putting words in my mouth you're insulting 50% of the world's population by breathing.
To all the commenters wow. I'm trying to get through all the responses but damn...
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
Hi
Several years ago i was studying at university but didn't finish my literary analysis project- Well, I am looking to go back to university and finish it, but I was hoping of doing it a bit easier on myself by not analysing and 800 page book (Mists of Avalon) nor using an Simone De Beauvoir's The Second Sex this time since it was a bit dense at times. That same thing could actually be said about Mists of Avalon. The author liked to go on for more than a page about how a character felt or saw something which didn't feel terribly needful or interesting.
I was hoping to ask if anyone here knows a book on feminist theory that they could recommend to me. I liked de Beauvoir's thoughts on female carnality and male sprituality, but I can't see how that stuff is very helpful if the book you are analysing doesn't have a societal angle, like how Mists of Avalon sort of have with the Christians and pagans sharing Britain but not values.
All advice is appreciated.
I also hope this post gets past the mods as I am not asking for help on homework nor only questions.
I studied feminist film theory (and a lot of other things that were SUPER relevant to real life work-lol) in college and love to look at shows like Yellowjackets through this lens. Would love to chat with some other folks who are familiar? Been thinking alot about Rich & Clovers works specifically.
For those that aren't familiar with feminist film theory:
I wanted to discuss this film in general but also in relation to feminist film theory, if anyone is able to or willing to. So old noir movies saw the stock character of the femme fatale. This woman was a sexual object, but also dangerous to the male protagonist, if the protagonist does bad deeds they are on account of her. Guilt is transferred to her, and she is often punished later in the narrative, perhaps even with death.
Neo-noir movies can see a reversal of this, or a more acceptable version of the femme fatale. I am just wondering if you guys felt that Brick does anything interesting with this stock, if it could be considered feminist in any way.
I was thinking ultimately no, although there is a greater emphasis on female agency than in old noir movies, and SPOILER! Nora zehetners character has agency over plenty of strong male characters./SPOILER. Anyone wanna discuss it? Especially someone more knowledgeable about feminist film theory than me.
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
- No male gaze objectification. 2. Gender parity for bad-assedness. 3. No dumbass romantic sub plots for the leads. 4. No unnecessary divulgation of sexual preferences for the leads. And that’s how you do it folks, no virtue signaling, just quietly creating grounded characters not following the standard gender role playbook.
https://hegelsbagels.net/posts/what-is-happening/
Hello! We're Neon Eye Productions Ltd., a film production company based in Edinburgh. We're currently working on our latest curation series 'Looking at Women', which has been written by History of Art and Art Practice student, Kathryn Cutler-MacKenzie. We thought the series might be of interest to readers of this page:
"This series is a 101 of feminist cinema that is accompanied by resources that lead into a more profound reading of the issue of female identity in artistic production. The aim of the curation is to provide the spectator and/or reader with a succinct and theoretically driven selection of films that deconstruct the sexually, socially and psychologically complicated identity of women in cinema (and beyond)." - Kathryn Cutler MacKenzie
The series begins with the role of the femme fatale in post war cinema and concludes with the role played by woman on screen during the 20th century. 11 films will be covered over the next 6 weeks, starting with Gilda and concluding with Jeanne Dielman.
https://www.neoneye.co.uk/gilda
https://www.neoneye.co.uk/doubleindemnity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5WyTJPdPXE&t=8s
We're looking for audience engagement with this series, particularly with the podcast discussion released every Thursday. At the end of the series we'll be hosting a live Q&A on YouTube where Kathryn and Neon Eye will discuss any comments that readers and viewers have in response to the films and film theory.
