Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

"Feminism" is not a status object or a "social status" in itself. Nor is it a heritable human trait. In general, one might construe "feminism" to mean a doctrine or ideology or schema which one adopts in order to evaluate the significance of any "gendered" or sex characteristic in a society. Feminism is a form of acquired knowledge, or experience. To borrow a phrase: Attachment to feminism "ranges from slightly positive to null or even negative" results.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 02:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Feminism is knowledge, thus power. With power comes status.

Feminism may care too little about its perceived status. But it does aspire to dictate ethics, social rules, thinking. It shames and promotes. Not clumsily?

by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 03:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Feminism" is not an anthropomorphic subject. Abstraction of intellect does not do anything --neither care nor dictate, shame or promote. "Feminism" is the predicate subject wanting a verb.

Knowledge of what?

Like "the more you know, the better you feel" or "the truth will set you free", "knowledge is power" is a bromide employed by someone to foreclose further examination of a subject, purportedly stored energy in the matter named "memory," until perhaps manifest, or represented, by action of some living creature. Expression is not certain.

ATinNM once posted a pithy rubric for ways of knowing. I'd rather not paraphrase but encourage you to consider unstated assumptions that you might encounter about experience, relation to, limitation of, and communicating knowledge: saber, conocer, o aprender is translated to know.

With power comes status? This supposition is incomplete. Although often repeated with analogy to thermodynamic law, the relation or correspondence of knowledge to status is incongruent. Status itself is demonstrably indeterminate as I stated. How has knowledge of sheela na gig altered your "social status" among your peers? Dialog from top to bottom of this thread indicate:

There's always been a relationship between power and knowledge. In the eighteenth century a very a particular relationship developed between power and knowledge. And it developed under the conditions of colonialism, where an entire intellectual apparatus was created for representing "the other". An entire intellectual apparatus and academic disciplines, organizations, entire societies were complicit in this enterprise.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 08:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Feminism acts as an institution, taking a lead of people and other institutions. Paraphrasing Romney: institutions are anthropomorphic, my friend.

The intellectual/academic apparatus for feminism is vastly larger than what colonialism enjoyed. The whole highly educated class is stuck-up with absorbed experiences (and evaded non-experiences). They tell what is a foreclosed debate.

So feminism wants power without status? That's a Bolshevik way. They got soon visceral leadership anyway.

My prediction: feminism will not be competitive with patriarchy's suave ways. It will not be trusted with powerful responsibility.

by das monde on Tue May 7th, 2019 at 09:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1."Feminism acts as an institution ..." The ideology of feminism, developed by people indoctrinated in western philosophy (academic institutions), is a part of the apparatus of hegemony status quo, e.g. (post-"colonial") Anglo-disease[d], corporatist, fascist, "white supremacy" (post-racial, *of color), "women and minorities" political propaganda, "women in leadership" corporate executive rank pay-scale. The internal consistency of this episteme is negligable, its conclusory statements implausible. Retrieve comments.*
2."The intellectual/academic apparatus for feminism ..." See #1. Ignore counter-cultural and -class antagonism inside and outside the boundaries of western institutional "representative democracy". So-called public discourse on violence is limited by mass media circulating client constituencies to personal injury, false dichotomies (eg. "Vagina Day", "Slut Walk", "intersectionality" and presumptive prosecutorial strategems, "femicide" dispensations, "commercial sex act" crimes).
3."So feminism wants power without status?..." Indeed, a significant faction of "feminist" within the boundaries of western institutional hegemony does not seek such "equilibrium" adjustment in capitalist doctrine and praxis --socially acceptable violence. Arguably, "fifth wave" propaganda postulates a sex-less and race-less body politic free of capital restraint --"status free" society--demonstrated by those advocates' integration with leadership status quo.
4."My prediction: feminism will not be competitive ..." Indeed, the function of this ideological "apparatus" is replication, reproduction, of status quo by merger and acquisition (M&A) of "competitive" political groups (peerage, caste, race, tribe, nationality). Induced with so-called incentive locked-up in family property rights --generational transfers of wealth(credit)-- to accept individual reward from the wealthiest in defense of authorities status quo. To put it petty: I don't see any "feminists" dumping surnames, "patronyms" when they marry [!], do you? I don't see no "X"; I see hyphenation.
So the argument that is going to be developed, and we're going to revisit this argument later on, the argument that is going to be developed in the early nineteenth century is the following: That essentially we develop an evaluative scale where we place one civilization relation to another, and we judge them. So for example one of the ways in which you evaluate civilizations or nation-states today rather is you say ... and that's what the UNDP report does.  What is the percentage of literacy in a country? What is the number of doctors per hundred thousand people? What is the number of hospital beds per hundred thousand people? What percentage of the population has access to drinking water, potable drinking water? et cetera , et cetera. One of the largest indices of this kind is what are the rights available to women? In the nineteenth century in early British India this is going to become a critical argument because, and this is the philosophical, ideological component of that argument, you judge a civilization and judge how advanced it is according to how it treats its women. So this is one reason, for example, if you look at state department reports on Afghanistan the argument will always be furnished that one of the principle reasons why we as [ersatz Anglo-]Americans had to move to Afghanistan is that we have to liberate their women. And remember what's happening: you're liberating brown women from brown men, and you need white men to do that. I want you to remember that. You're liberating brown women from the clutches of brown men, and the way to do that is to bring white men into the picture. This is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan today in many ways mirrors the kind of arguments that you're going to find in early nineteenth century India.
* The evidence of "complicity" is all around us. A lot of my comments at eurotrib and other platforms since '07 have captured incidents memorialized by publishers, on- and off-line, because I have been a participant in and critic of US-"feminist" enterprises since the early 1980s. That is a long bibliography. I did not wake up yesterday morning and will not be intimidated by bullshit "inclusion" modeling and manqué "rights" for genitalia. The language of psychopathy and those people who communicate it are the enemies of political evolution.

Do your homework.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue May 7th, 2019 at 05:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, I shut up
by das monde on Wed May 8th, 2019 at 07:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series