Letters to the Editor
-
Let me get this straight...
You're offended by the word "panties?" What on earth would you prefer - "underpants" (sheesh...)? My mother taught me that females wore the former and males wore the latter; also that we wear "lingerie" and they wear "underwear." And that's all fine by this pre/post/current feminist! So there!
-
"panties"
Hee hee -- it's not that I'm "offended," no. I just hate the sound of it. Same reason I hate, but am not offended by, "glean."
-
Aren't "panties" for little girls?
Hence the discomfort when applied to women.
-
Ridiculous
Movements -- intellectual, philosophical, literate, what have you -- don't last forever. Realism gave way to post-realism, which we ended up calling modernism, which gave way to post-modernism, which we haven't got around to renaming yet.
Feminism, as a critical theory, can't be expected to remain intact for 40+ years. At some point, there's enough of a change that we enter a post-feminist period. That doesn't mean that feminism "won" or "lost" -- it just means that the label isn't as relevant to the current crop of thinkers as it was to the previous crop.
Get over it. Ideas change, language changes, society changes. The only thing that remains constant is a pedantic clinging to ideas we held dear as college seniors.
-
Does feminism allow for internal debates? Signs point to no.
Yeah ... no. As Jervis herself points out, that position presumes that feminism was One Monolithic Earth-Toned Thing to begin with, and that feminism today doesn't encompass "internal debates and disagreements and near-constant re-examinations of goals, tactics, and ideologies."
Why is it that Wendy Kaminer, Cathy Young, and other non-mainstream feminists no longer write at Salon?
Why is it that Daphne Patai's works about the strict political correctness enforced in the women's studies departments is not discussed? Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies
Why is it that equity feminism is not discussed or debated in any terms whatsoever at Salon? I think it is a point of view many of your readers would like to discuss, if not embrace.
Why is Christina Hoff Sommers described as "anti-feminist" when equity-feminist or feminist with a disagreement about goals, tactics and strategies" would be more accurate?
Why is it that feminists like Glenn Sacks, struggling in the area of fathers and womens rights in the courtroom are not mentioned at Salon?
How is it that you can continue to blogroll feminists that LBGT feminists have described as bigots?
And finally, how operational is it to ask about "post-patriarchy" or even "patriarchy?"
Please explain how we can actually measure patriarchy? I understand how we can measure sexism. One way is to see who gets apartments rented to them, and who gets employed. I can measure sexism and describe a society where sexism has been greatly reduced.
I have never seen ANY way explained to measure patriarchy. And so I have no idea how we can ever say that we are making progress in reducing patriarchy, or have in fact eliminated patriarchy.
So when you discuss "post-patriarchy" and reject "post-patriarchy", you are begging the question, "how do we measure patriarchy"
Apparently you feel patriarchy is still present, is something that needs to be reduced, and that someday will be reduced to insignificant amounts that will let you move on to other work.
So please then, describe, "how do we measure patriarchy", "what are the operational measurements", "are there quantitative graphs that demonstrate what has been happening to patriarchy in the past 30 years", "can a trend line be drawn?"
I'd say there is very little and very limited internal debate in feminism. I think Broadstreet's daily posts demonstrate that nicely.
-
"I'll be postfeminist in the postpatriarchy"
But when can anyone say that the "postpatriarchy" has come into existence? Not until every last female complaint- however banal- has been erased from the planet.
How very fortunate for those who would have little sense of identity remaining if feminism were to become irrelevant. I mean let's face it: if feminism were to ever reach its goals, the need for it would logically evaporate, right? And then, most women wouldn't call themselves "feminists" despite believing in its goals-- which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly the situation we see today.
Ahh, but if you're one of those stupid women who isn't psychologically-dependent on blaming men for all the world's problems, then you only prove how feminism is more desperately-needed than ever. How stubbornly intractable that gosh-darned patriarchy is!
Hah... what a cute little cult of brainwashing that feminism has become.
-
Measuring Patriarchy
How To Measure Patriarchy
1. Look at a picture of Congress. How many men do you see? How many women? Establish a ratio. This will serve as a measure of patriarchy.
2. Alternatively, compile a list of CEOs and boards of directors. Count the number of men, then count the number of women. Establish a ratio. This will serve as a measure of patriarchy.
3. Alternatively, examine other institutions of power and authority (such as law enforcement or the military). Obtain the numbers of men and women in positions of authority within those institutions. Establish a ration. This will serve as a measure of patriarchy.
4. Once you have established and accepted a methodology for obtaining a measure of patriarchy, perform similar analysis at various points in history. Chart the changes in the measurement. The resulting graph will provide a somewhat accurate measure of the rise and decline of patriarchy throughout history.
-
Post-feminism? Try this example
You're right to think that the term has been (ab)used as a way of telling women to shut up and go back to the kitchen (so to speak). Then again, ripostes like the bumper sticker you cite give the impression of a endless Manichean war until the last chauvinist is hanged with the guts of the last misogynist - and until that time nothing has changed for women since (insert ancient date here), so the tactics and rhetoric don't need to change either. Was it Susan Faludi in 'Stiffed' that pointed out the irony of women using the very same adversarial strategies they deplored in men as part of women's political struggles?
That said, one example that may indicate post-feminism is the way in which debates about sexual behaviour don't fit into neat gender lines. For example: is having multiple partners an act of resistance against patriarchal oppression or mimicking 'male' behaviour? Feminism could explain why the 'rules' are supposedly different for men and women, and the double standards therein, but it can't explain why some avowedly feminist writers cleave to the idea of monogamy, implying that it is a feminist project to make men (and other women) faithful. (See also the debates on porn, BDSM and sex work.) This goes beyond the more traditional debate between 'liberal', moderate', 'radical' or whatever 'wings' of feminism as a political movement.