You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Feminist Critique’ tag.
More than any of the tropes discussed in the last month the Straw Feminist is the one that I run into the most. Making up an version of the issues that you’re trying to hate-on makes for easy, but dishonest arguments from those who oppose feminism (racism, socialism, equality rights in general) and its goals. So the process then is two fold, first you have to disabuse said person of their distorted view on the subject and then you have to explain why the point being made is important and how that fits into the larger context of society.
It is a tiring, thankless process for the most part as many, mired in the status-quo either cannot or will not look at arguments that challenge their perceived notion of how the world works.
So, enjoy the video on straw-feminism discussion is welcome in the comments section.
Women getting squished into yet another trope that reflects poorly on our society. This time with help of the feminist frequency we observe how women are held up as objects of objectification and ridicule at the same time. Patriarchy is good at that giving women two choices both equally bad the Madonna/whore trap coming to mind.
I found the whole movie on youtube, lucky us. :) It is one hour and twenty six minutes long, so find some popcorn and a comfy chair. Learn and enjoy. :)
Just some highlights from Paula Kirby’s essay on Feminism. I’ve read it and concluded that she really has missed the point of what feminism is all about. The original document is here, and of course the deconstruction is at Jadehawk’s blog from which this excerpt originates.
[PK:}Let’s consider 1930s Germany for a moment. How did the Nazis gain popular support? By exploiting a sense of grievance post-Versailles, by continually telling the German people they’d been treated abominably, had their noses ground in the dust,been unfairly penalized, that they were the victims of an international, Jew-led conspiracy, that they needed to rise from the ashes and gain their revenge and their proper, god-ordained place in the world.
[JH:]Yeah, let’s consider this. And by “this”, I don’t actually mean the historical inaccuracies in this paragraph, because they’re not relevant just now. For starters, as Paula herself reluctantly admits in a later paragraph, it’s not actually a case of the Nazis “telling the German people they’d been treated abominably”, since the German people were well-aware of that fact (and a fact it certainly was), Nazis or no. But let’s consider the political situation in 1930′s Germany. Here we have an abysmally poor, systematically oppressed people, who end up becoming radicalized and a totalitarian state results. Happens all the fucking time. What’s the solution to the problem?
Well, according to Paula, it seems to be “Oh you silly Germans. Stop feeling oppressed and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”, and “Don’t talk about systemic oppression, don’t try to eliminate oppression, and don’t ever dare publicly and openly argue with those who say there isn’t any. Because if you do, you’ll be propagating a victim mentality and also being Nazis yourself.” Where in the goddamn universe has being silent about systemic oppression and telling people to instead fix themselves ever worked?
The real solution to the existence of systemic victims is not cries of individualist empowerment, but deconstruction of the oppressive system.
The French learned this lesson, which is why WWII was followed by the creation of the Council of Europe and the EEC instead of another oppressive Treaty of Versailles.
[…]
[PK:]So there is an alternative, and it is this alternative that I would urge women to seize with both hands – whether we’re talking about how we interact in our jobs, in our social lives or in the atheist movement. And that alternative is to take responsibility for ourselves and our own success. To view ourselves as mature, capable adults who can take things in our stride, and can speak up appropriately. To really start believing that we can do whatever men can do. To stop seizing on excuses for staying quiet and submissive, stop blaming it on men or hierarchies or misogyny or, silliest of all, “privilege”, and start simply practising being more assertive.
[JH:]And the way to fight poverty is to stop “externalizing” the causes of poverty, and instead tell people to stop being so goddamn lazy and to view themselves as “mature, capable adults who can take things in our stride” and stop blaming their poverty on rich people or hierarchies or classism or “privilege”.
Libertarianism is such tiresome bullshit.
Anyway, she’s repeating the bullshit trope that non-libertarian feminists are saying that women aren’t capable of doing what men do. This is of course bullshit. Women are just as capable as men, and they are often far better able to deal with adversity since they don’t get shit handed to them on a silver platter and have to constantly fight against stupid sexist bullshit.
Men faced with even a fraction of the shit a woman who shares their other social statuses has to face tend to dissolve into incoherent puddles of self-pity rather quickly (see: MRA), because they lack the practice and have never acquired the requisite hardened skins. However, as noted above, being able to deal with stupid shit is not actually a good reason for stupid shit to exist. Plus, as everyone should realize, two people with identical ability but different stressloads will rather obviously not perform equally at the one task they have in common. All we’re trying to do is a)undo some of that damage of the extra stressload in the short term, and b)equalize the stressload.
Ah yes, tokenism at its best. Just imagine the dudely outrage when called out on this particular trope. See! See! We have a female character… oh wait.
*update – textual goodness*
Take note of the Male-to-Female ratio.
“I’m the only girl.”
— Marzipan, Homestar Runner
— Marzipan, Homestar Runner
For any series not aimed solely at females, odds are high that only one female will be in the regular cast. The Smurfette Principle is the tendency for works of fiction to have exactly one female amongst an ensemble of male characters, in spite of the fact that roughly half of the human race is female. Unless a show is purposefully aimed at a female viewing audience, the main characters will tend to be disproportionately male. In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be The Chick. Thus, by the Law of Conservation of Detail , you only need one. In other cases, the women are feminized versions of existing male characters. This trope has lessened over time, but even now it often applies to animated fare aimed at boys or a general audience. This is especially serious when the regular cast is full of synthetic entities or other species which have a voice or are sufficiently humanoid; these will always be more masculine than feminine, with any feminine examples receiving special attention, suggesting that women are merely an unusual subtype of men. Why does this trope happen? Often, the problem lies with the source material — the work’s an adaptation of something written or created decades before equal recognition for women started to gain momentum. Sometimes, however, writers will try to correct this problem by inserting a few more female characters or at least an Affirmative Action Girl. When the time for merchandising comes, unless the cast is all female, manufacturers won’t create as many figures of the female members as they would males of the franchise even if the series is Merchandise Driven (or at least, until the mid-90’s). This creates a vicious cycle in which The Smurfette Principle is upheld by both toy manufacturers and TV writers, each reasoning that the other will enforce it anyway. This may be because, statistically, companies believe that action figures of female characters don’t sell as well as the male ones, all evidence to the contrary. Of course, the shortage of female action figures to base those figures on can lead to another vicious cycle. In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because hitting a girl just isn’t considered funny. (In the case of harmless Amusing Injuries, this isn’t always the case.) This trope can also be justified by its unfortunate accuracy in certain contexts. It is fairly realistic for armies, police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male, especially if set in a non-Politically Correct History. As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with Positive Discrimination, making the girl more intelligent and level-headed than everyone else, but it still doesn’t change the simple fact that there’s only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a Mary Sue for everyone to loathe. Writers who recognize the problem after a season or two may expand the cast with Affirmative Action Girls. This is usually more effective. Interestingly, this can extend to Mooks and the Monster of the Week with Monogender Monsters, to avoid the Unfortunate Implications of violence against women. The name of this trope was first coined by an article in the New York Times printed April 7, 1991, called “The Smurfette Principle”
. The article discussed the negative message which this trope gave its young audience: that males are individuals who have adventures, while females are a type of deviation who exist only in relation to males.
Popular culture certainly has it in for women, they wind up dead surprisingly often.
Oh and a link to the actual site of the WiR trope.
Patriarchy hurts both women and men. This the first of in a series of examinations of popular culture presented with a feminist critique.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…