Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Feminism - where are the threads?

8ball said:
Was reading about how around 1910 a “suffragette suit” containing six pockets became quite popular in some quarters.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the political history of clothing on tinternet.
Click to expand...
One thing I learnt translating some period texts was during the high socialist era when clothing was all quite similar in a sop to ending status distinctions here you could still spot an officer or senior cadre because their jacket got more pockets.
 
Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.

I've just been wondering whether he's still in that headspace so got googling.... holy crap


http://triggeralert (dot) blogspot.com/

This was a review of his first mens rights song

jezebel.com

How Long Can You Listen to this Men's Rights Anthem Before You Tear Your Ears Off?

God, you guys, you know what sucks? How men are responsible for all human achievement (except, uh, actually making other humans) and women just shit all over them. But now, thankfully, the Men's Rights movement has found a musical prophet fit to deliver the message that men are fed up with the...
jezebel.com jezebel.com

the entirety of the piece is a this one guy looping the same guitar chord progression over itself as he gently bitches in whisper-falsetto about the fact that it's men who did cool shit like build bridges and fight wars and build houses and meanwhile women just sat around collecting alimony checks and emasculating their husbands with their stupid emotional needs and menacingly brandished rolling pins. It sucks lyrically; in fact, after I read through the lyrics, which are helpfully listed with the video's post on YouTube, I realized that the 30 seconds I took to read them is 30 seconds that I will not have to read another poem, a real poem, or to talk to my mother on the phone, or to take a moment to stop and smell the roses. It's 30 seconds that I could've spent going to the kitchen to get some green tea. I will never have those precious moments of my life back. Anyway, here's a sample,

Men have no doubt
Just what they're for
We die at work
We die in war
We die at sea
As the lifeboats float ashore
Women & children,
all aboard

We take the strain
We bear the load
Build the bridges
Sweep the roads
Make the houses
That make the homes
Pay for others
But live alone


While many of the comments posted in response to the song are super supportive of hating women because they didn't declare or fight in wars, like this one— "Truly inspiring 3 feminists troll dislike it, This is how feminist they turn there heads over the mens right and speak of equality among genders, Lolz hypocrite femicreeps." Femicreeps! Ow, my self esteem. Others cut to the chase and address the song in the context of reality: "You don't sound like someone who's built anything."

Commenters asked the artist whether he'd be writing a sequel, but he says that this song pretty much took care of all his thoughts on the matter. In the meantime, a waaaahmbulance has been dispatched to the man's house with an emergency case containing the world's tiniest violin
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tufty79 said:
www.vox.com

The Sexist, Political History of Pockets

Why men were given pockets while women bought bags to carry
www.vox.com www.vox.com

"As we become more civilized, we need more pockets," the piece says, "No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless."
Click to expand...

Hmm. Questionable wording.

As an aside, in many (very often “male”) jobs the kind of clothing that has the most pockets is typically seen as not very high status. Even the military ditch most of their pockets when in ceremonial garb.

Magicians are probably a special case...

Further aside, I was told in work that my clothing was unprofessional on account of having too many pockets.

(sorry, going off topic) :oops:
 
Last edited:
tufty79 said:
Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.

I've just been wondering whether he's still in that headspace so got googling.... holy crap


http://triggeralert (dot) blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

That's actually your ex-friend? :eek:
 
Yep. I have a little bit of sick in my mouth.
Not seen him since 2012? don't know what hes up to these days apart from being an angry little boy. (Apologies for ageist language)
 
8ball said:
There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the political history of clothing
Click to expand...
The history of bloomers is quite interesting.

I always used to think of bloomers as comedy underwear beloved of fictional grannies, but when Amelia Bloomer popularised them in the 1840s and 50s as part of her Bloomer Suit they were radical and controversial. At the time in the US 'ladies' were expected to cover their lower half in numerous layers of ribbed petticoats, making it hard to walk, harder to manage stairs and impossible to sit in a dignified manner, while on their top half they were expected to wear ribbed corsets, making it hard to breathe. The Bloomer Suit enabled women to move freely, comfortably and to breathe. This was, of course, madness to traditionalists. The bloomer under-trousers evolved over time to become the underwear that is better known today.

Here's a picture of Amelia Bloomer in her eponymous suit:
Amelia_Bloomer.jpg
 
tufty79 said:
Off topic but MRA related/cross pst and copy from a different thread... I lost a friend to The Cause years ago. He got cut off by a lot of female friends.

I've just been wondering whether he's still in that headspace so got googling.... holy crap


http://triggeralert (dot) blogspot.com/

This was a review of his first mens rights song

jezebel.com

How Long Can You Listen to this Men's Rights Anthem Before You Tear Your Ears Off?

God, you guys, you know what sucks? How men are responsible for all human achievement (except, uh, actually making other humans) and women just shit all over them. But now, thankfully, the Men's Rights movement has found a musical prophet fit to deliver the message that men are fed up with the...
jezebel.com jezebel.com
Click to expand...
I made it about four minutes in. tbf if you didn't understand English, it might sound like it's probably a pleasant love song :D
 
Sorry for the million brain tangents in my posts so far...
I've just remembered the virago book of wicked verse that I used to own and lost years ago - I've just found it for three quid on Ebay with delivery in time for xmas :cool:

I will be posting relevant chunks of it when it lands.
 
8ball said:
Hmm. Questionable wording.

As an aside, in many (very often “male”) jobs the kind of clothing that has the most pockets is typically seen as not very high status. Even the military ditch most of their pockets when in ceremonial garb.

Magicians are probably a special case...

Further aside, I was told in work that my clothing was unprofessional on account of having too many pockets.

(sorry, going off topic) :oops:
Click to expand...
At least you have pockets :D I'm not going to assume your gender though...

Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad for years.
If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff.

If there isn't a current Pockets for Women campaign in the wider fashion industry, there should be.

I did warn you that I like pockets.
 
tufty79 said:
At least you have pockets :D I'm not going to assume your gender though...

Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad for years.
If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff.

If there isn't a current Pockets for Women campaign in the wider fashion industry, there should be.

I did warn you that I like pockets.
Click to expand...
Pyjamas with pockets have made my life complete.

That is all.
 
I did try to join an offline feminist conversation group a couple of years ago, but the meetings were at a misogyny baked in venue, and I was told it was understandable if I stayed away because I was uncomfortable going there :facepalm:

Again, thank you for this thread being here. I've really missed posting on here.
 
tufty79 said:
At least you have pockets :D I'm not going to assume your gender though...

Do men ever buy clothes with crappy fake pockets? Its driven me mad for years.
If I buy a frock with pockets, I'm always just WHY AREN'T ALL CLOTHES LIKE THIS?, rather than the minority of womens stuff.

If there isn't a current Pockets for Women campaign in the wider fashion industry, there should be.

I did warn you that I like pockets.
Click to expand...
I got annoyed that the shorts I like mostly no longer have pockets. I'm down to a single brand that has em now.

Also the latest design of m&s linin trousers have simplified again. No belt loops and smaller pockets. Not yet comedy size women's pockets but I don't like this trend.
 
kabbes said:
Well, it is true that it’s not always straightforward to read these things. But if I were to read a paper from your own academic field, would I not have expect to have to do some work in order to understand it? Academia doesn’t become trivial just because it’s a social science rather than a biological science. Sociological studies are built on years of analysis, theory, evidence gathering, analysis, theory, evidence gathering just as they are in your own area. But that’s precisely why it’s a bit frustrating when people tread old ground without at least being willing to consider that others have already been there, and with considerable rigour. Otherwise, it’s like insisting on one’s own views regarding the nervous system based only on one’s own observations and having watched a YouTube video about phrenology, if you see what I mean. It’s just a good thing to know something about the body of work already performed if you’re going to advance your own theories.

Of course, abstracts are never the easiest part of a paper to read anyway. They compress the whole thing into a few hundred words, so don’t have time to explain anything. Papers themselves are much easier to read than abstracts.

Now, this abstract: I’ll try to expand it based also on my understanding of what the paper itself discusses:


Here she’s saying that government strategies have encouraged and enabled certain education and employment practices. These practices are all about turning women into the right kind of worker. They’re certainly not created in the interests of women.


This is saying that part of those education and employment strategies created by governments is to create a cultural value system that does not question the political structure. Girls have been sold an individualist, meritocratic dream and sent out to attain it. By design, this value system does not question hegemonic masculinity, ie (amongst other things) the way the world is built around having power if you are within the working world that was traditionally a male preserve. As a result, the cultural beliefs that give men power, which were being challenged prior to the late 90s, have been restabilised.


This is saying that since girls have been sold the idea that they can now do and achieve anything, it becomes their own fault if they don’t manage it. They just need to work harder on perfecting themselves. Given the effort this takes, the last thing women then have time for is to challenge the status quo.

So in total, it’s raising similar concerns to yours, but it’s having an in-depth look at where the real blame belongs for the things you are concerned about. And the reason for me pushing this paper is that this is part of current feminism. When you say “feminism is saying X”, it doesn’t then seem fair to not actually read what feminism really is saying. I’m pointing out to you that what you are claiming about feminism is not right, and I’m giving you the respect of doing so by actually giving you the evidence for my statement.
Click to expand...

I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?
 
Red Cat said:
I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?
Click to expand...
Oh gosh me too, I just couldn’t.
 
Red Cat said:
I tried to read this but it's an academic paper full of jargon that's not especially sociological - interpellation, the Symbolique, feminist masquerade, the phallic - it's not an accessible paper at all. What is it you like about it particularly?
Click to expand...
I’m surprised you use “Interpellation” as an example of non-sociological terminology. Interpellation is a key part of a lot of sociocultural theory, whose origins go back to the early 70s. It’s a fundamental part of Butler’s writings about performativity, for example. By responding to a system as if your allotted role is valid, you internalise the rules of that system.

And McRobbie is introducing “feminist masquerade” and “phallic girl” as her own terminology so yes, that’s non-standard. But pretty obvious from context.

The paper is a neat encapsulation of the process by which governments have subverted and diverted feminist ideals in order to neatly achieve both a more compliant, willing workforce and also head off the risk of genuine political change. It talks about the messaging around womanhood that is provided to girls and young women, positioning them as the privileged rather than the subjugated. Women do better at education! Women have protective rights! More women are employed than men in this industry! It talks about the way messaging has moved away from women as reproducers and towards women as agentic workers. To use McRobbie’s own words, “as a result of equal opportunities policies in the education system and with all of this feminist influence somehow behind her, she is now pushed firmly in the direction of independence and self reliance. This entails self-monitoring, the setting up of personal plans and the search for individual solutions.”

The paper then looks at the consequence of this interpellation of the role of “one with capacity“ on feminist critique throughout the late 90s and 00s. How it subverted concerns about things like equal status for different types of role into a push to the “lean in” politics of competing with men. In other words, it became a masquerade. But as McRobbie examines, the structural basis was not put in place to truly allow for equality even on this basis. The dream had been sold to girls but there was no interest in creating a level playing field for women. The difference now was that women couldn’t complain because, after all, governments had given them every opportunity.

What I like about the paper is that it doesn‘t take an ahistorical perspective. I recall her even talking about her own failings in the 90s/00s to engage with and tackle the shift of focus from equality of experience to equality of opportunity, just so long as that opportunity is to do what men do. (I can’t remember if that was in this specific paper or in the wider book of which this is one chapter, though). It tackles the political context head-on, looking at how governments embraced the “girl-power“ attitude and puncturing just what a problem this came to be.

Not sure what more you want me to say without writing up an essay about it. I’m very surprised that you didn’t like it, frankly.
 
I’d also note that I’ve hardly posted up some obscure fringe author, either. McRobbie is one of the most high-profile feminist writers at the very top of the academic tree. Look at her Wikipedia page, ffs! Angela McRobbie - Wikipedia — and the paper you are deriding is from The Aftermath of Feminism, which is mentioned in the introduction of that page about her.
 
kabbes said:
I’m surprised you use “Interpellation” as an example of non-sociological terminology. Interpellation is a key part of a lot of sociocultural theory, whose origins go back to the early 70s. It’s a fundamental part of Butler’s writings about performativity, for example. By responding to a system as if your allotted role is valid, you internalise the rules of that system.

And McRobbie is introducing “feminist masquerade” and “phallic girl” as her own terminology so yes, that’s non-standard. But pretty obvious from context.

The paper is a neat encapsulation of the process by which governments have subverted and diverted feminist ideals in order to neatly achieve both a more compliant, willing workforce and also head off the risk of genuine political change. It talks about the messaging around womanhood that is provided to girls and young women, positioning them as the privileged rather than the subjugated. Women do better at education! Women have protective rights! More women are employed than men in this industry! It talks about the way messaging has moved away from women as reproducers and towards women as agentic workers. To use McRobbie’s own words, “as a result of equal opportunities policies in the education system and with all of this feminist influence somehow behind her, she is now pushed firmly in the direction of independence and self reliance. This entails self-monitoring, the setting up of personal plans and the search for individual solutions.”

The paper then looks at the consequence of this interpellation of the role of “one with capacity“ on feminist critique throughout the late 90s and 00s. How it subverted concerns about things like equal status for different types of role into a push to the “lean in” politics of competing with men. In other words, it became a masquerade. But as McRobbie examines, the structural basis was not put in place to truly allow for equality even on this basis. The dream had been sold to girls but there was no interest in creating a level playing field for women. The difference now was that women couldn’t complain because, after all, governments had given them every opportunity.

What I like about the paper is that it doesn‘t take an ahistorical perspective. I recall her even talking about her own failings in the 90s/00s to engage with and tackle the shift of focus from equality of experience to equality of opportunity, just so long as that opportunity is to do what men do. (I can’t remember if that was in this specific paper or in the wider book of which this is one chapter, though). It tackles the political context head-on, looking at how governments embraced the “girl-power“ attitude and puncturing just what a problem this came to be.

Not sure what more you want me to say without writing up an essay about it. I’m very surprised that you didn’t like it, frankly.
Click to expand...

Interpellation was an example of jargon (not especially sociological was a further qualification that admittedly wasn't made clear but I'm busy). Lacan and all that follows is not obvious at all and feminist masquerade has a history in that.

I don't have time to write more as I'm getting my youngest ready for school.
 
Last edited:
kabbes said:
I’d also note that I’ve hardly posted up some obscure fringe author, either. McRobbie is one of the most high-profile feminist writers at the very top of the academic tree. Look at her Wikipedia page, ffs! Angela McRobbie - Wikipedia — and the paper you are deriding is from The Aftermath of Feminism, which is mentioned in the introduction of that page about her.
Click to expand...

I haven't derided it at all, i said it was full of specialist language that isn't readily understandable outside the field - jargon. I'm actually familiar with some of it, enough to recognise it, and i still found the paper very hard going.
 
As an aside, and only because interpellation is a central concept in my work*, it comes from Althusser and was - initially - used to explain how ideology produces 'subjects' out of us. I could happily chat all day about the scope and limits of interpellation, despite not particularly liking Althusser.

...but that's probably for a separate microthread.


*...and, sadly, am finding myself increasingly referencing Lacan too :(
 
...so, yes, Red Cat is right, it is jargon, specific to a particular lens used by some social scientists.

it's not, imo, a difficult concept, but if you're not familiar with it the short-hand use of the term is of course alienating to readers not versed in this particular lens.

All imho of course, and largely off topic I'm sure. Sorry.
 
chilango said:
As an aside, and only because interpellation is a central concept in my work*, it comes from Althusser and was - initially - used to explain how ideology produces 'subjects' out of us. I could happily chat all day about the scope and limits of interpellation, despite not particularly liking Althusser.

...but that's probably for a separate microthread.


*...and, sadly, am finding myself increasingly referencing Lacan too :(
Click to expand...

I'm aware that its Althusser, although I noted he wasn't even in the references. Neither was Lacan because, I assume, its taken for granted in the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
What are the underlying causes of hate crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
pug
pug
Cloo
Why are more young men than older seeing feminism as a bad thing?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
287
Views
15K
mango5
mango5
frogwoman
What are the international implications if Israel gets kicked out of the UN?
2
Replies
35
Views
901
tim
tim
Cloo
Where to start with bell hooks?
Replies
6
Views
389
GarveyLives
G
zedr
French Revolutionary Calendar - what are you?
2
Replies
33
Views
894
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
Back
Top Bottom