Jump to content
ethank

Feminism K stuff

Recommended Posts

I will not be reading the fem K, but I am interested in a card that discusses female ontology and the hierarchal positions between men and women. This could be a k prior I guess for it. Like female ontological death idk. I haven't done too much research into that yet.  This is for an english project about A Doll's House in case anybody is wondering. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for, but here are a few things you might find helpful. 

Male domination ensures the dehumanization of women

Taylor 12 – Ph.D Transpersonal Psychology @ Liverpool John Moores University, Senior lecturer in psychology @ Leeds Metropolitan University (Steven, “Out of the Darknessâ€, http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/steve-taylor, RSpec)

There have been attempts to explain the oppression of women in biological terms. For example, in his book The Inevitablity of Patriarchy, the sociologist Stephen Goldberg suggests that men are naturally more competitive than women because of their high level of testosterone. This makes them aggressive and power-hungry, so that they inevitably take over the high status positions in a society, leaving women to the more subordinate roles. However, in my view the maltreatment of women has more deep-rooted psychological causes. In my new book Back to Sanity, I suggest that most human beings suffer from an underlying psychological disorder, which I call ‘humania.' The oppression of women is a symptom of this disorder. It’s one thing to take over the positions of power in a society, but another to seemingly despise women, and inflict so much brutality and degradation on them. What sane species would treat half of its members — and the very half which gives birth to the whole species — with such contempt and injustice? Despite their high level of testosterone, the men of many ancient and indigenous cultures revered women for their life-giving and nurturing role, so why don’t we? The oppression of women stems largely from men’s desire for power and control. The same need which, throughout history, has driven men to try to conquer and subjugate other groups or nations, and to oppress other classes or groups in their own society, drives them to dominate and oppress women. Since men feel the need to gain as much power and control as they can, they steal away power and control from women. They deny women the right to make decisions so that they can make them for them, leave women unable to direct their own lives so that they can direct their lives for them. Ultimately, they’re trying to increase their sense of significance and status, in an effort to offset the discontent and sense of lack created by humania.

 

Inequality has a material impact on women

Belle 2003 Deborah. Department of Psychology, Boston University "Poverty, Inequality, And Discrimination As Sources Of Depression Among U.S. Women." Wiley Online Library. N.p., 6 May. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-6402.00090/full>.

Poverty, inequality, and discrimination endanger women's well-being. Poverty is one of the most consistent predictors of depression in women, probably because it imposes considerable stress while attacking many potential sources of social support. Economic inequalities within societies are associated with reduced life expectancy and a variety of negative physical health outcomes. Parallel research on economic inequalities and depression has just begun. Discrimination maintains inequalities, condemns women to lives of lessened economic security, and exposes them to unmerited contempt. Although the mental health impact of poverty is documented and largely understood, the implications of inequality and discrimination are less well known. Much important work remains to be done, particularly research that connects individuals' mental health to ecological characteristics of the communities and societies in which they live.

 

Patriarchal hierarchies otherize women and attempt to control them

Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theoryâ€, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS

Much has been written of late by post-structuralist international relations theorists7 about this issue of "inside" and "outside" as it relates to  the paradigmatic formulation of realism that postulates an ordered and  reasonable domestic society as against a disordered, unreasonable  (mad or MAD), anarchical international society. Although Richard Ashley speaks to the will to power of "statecraft as man-craft" to control all  that it defines as outside of its control8 - anarchy, war, crises, and so on  - he does not root this analysis in the patriarchal relations of "manstate" seeking to control "woman," which it construes as an unreasonable (mad), anarchical "outsider" or "other."  It is this patriarchal construction of "woman," we argue, that renders  women as both invisible in and yet central to the tenets of realism. On  the one hand, "woman" has no place in the grand narrative and high  politics of anarchical interstate relations. In this reading, she is a  "domesticated" figure whose "feminine" sensibilities are both at odds  with and inconsequential to the harsh "realities" of the public world of  men and states. On the other hand, the patriarchal construction of  woman" as madness, the other, the outsider, which is coterminus with  the way realism defines international relations, gives rise to the need to  "tame" and "domesticate" her - to bring her under control because she  can never aspire to having "reason" herself.  Interestingly, as Felman notes, "Madness ... is precisely what makes a  woman 'not' a woman."9 This does not mean that "woman" or the  "feminine" can lay claim to the "masculine" quality of rationality in  patriarchal discourse, but it does suggest that womanhood" (particularly as housewifery) is a reserved quality that is incompatible with the  disorder of madness - witness the tortuous medical treatments visited  upon "hysterical" women over time. So, too, the image of the impermeable and orderly state breaks down in the face of international disorder.Realism does not expect rationality to prevail in interstate relations  (any more than it is expected in patriarchal discourse to exist in  Vornan"), so it, too, must advocate strong and coercive measures to try  to bring the madness and hysteria under "man's" control. Thus, the  patriarchal construction of woman" as the site of disorder, which must  be treated and tamed to conform to the dictates of "femininity" as a  controlled identity, haunts the realist formulation of man/state vs.  mad/states

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am not sure 100 percent what exactly you want, but here are some cards that explore specifically the relationship between women and man and how it leads to patriarchy.

 

An ideal sense of hegemonic masculinity will forever be unattainable, instead it dehumanizes females and kills value to life

Tickner, 92-[ J. Ann. (1992). (Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, Engendered Insecurities. Columbia University Press. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Columbia International Affairs Online http://www.ciaonet.org/book/tickner/tickner12.html]- AAA

 

While the purpose of this book is to introduce gender as a category of analysis into the discipline of international relations, the marginalization of women in the arena of foreign policy-making through the kind of gender stereotyping that I have described suggests that international politics has always been a gendered activity in the modern state system. Since foreign and military policy-making has been largely conducted by men, the discipline that analyzes these activities is bound to be primarily about men and masculinity. We seldom realize we think in these terms, however; in most fields of knowledge we have become accustomed to equating what is human with what is masculine. Nowhere is this more true than in international relations, a discipline that, while it has for the most part resisted the introduction of gender into its discourse, bases its assumptions and explanations almost entirely on the activities and experiences of men. Any attempt to introduce a more explicitly gendered analysis into the field must therefore begin with a discussion of masculinity. Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with "manliness," such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics. Frequently, manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior, produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image of masculinity does not fit most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally dominant masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political and social order. 6 Hegemonic masculinity is sustained through its opposition to various subordinated and devalued masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important, through its relation to various devalued femininities. Socially constructed gender differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between men and women that reinforce compliance with men's stated superiority. Nowhere in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images more apparent than in the realm of international politics, where the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity are projected onto the behavior of states whose success as international actors is measured in terms of their power capabilities and capacity for self-help and autonomy.

 

 

Discussion of feminism is key to the reinforcing the individual of a women in the world.

Nhanenge 7

– Master of Arts at the development studies @ the University of South Africa (Jytte “Ecofeminism: Towards Integrating the concerns of women,, poor people and nature into development†http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1) - JS

Consequently, also social scientists apply the scientific characteristics of objectivity, value-freedom, rationality and quantifiability to social life. In this way, they assume they can unveil universal laws about social relations, which will lead to true knowledge. Based on this, connect social policies can be formulated. Thus, social processes are excluded, while scientific objective facts are included. Society is assumed a static entity, where no changes are possible. By promoting a permanent character, social science legitimizes the existing social order, while obscuring the relations of domination and subordination, which is keeping the existing power relations inaccessible to analysis. The frozen order also makes it impossible to develop alternative explanations about social reality. It prevents a historical and political understanding of reality and denies the possibility for social transformation by human agency. The prevailing condition is seen as an unavoidable fact. This implies that human beings are passive and that domination is a natural force, for which no one is responsible. This permits the state freely toimplement laws and policies, which are controlling and coercive. These are seen as being correct, because they are based on scientific facts made by scientific expense. One result is that the state, without consulting the public, engages in a pathological pursuit of economic growth. Governments support the capitalist ideology, which benefits the elite only, while it is destroying nature and increasing poverty for women and lower classes. The priority on capitalism also determines other social policies. There are consequently no considerations for a possible conflict between the aims of the government for social control and economic efficiency and the welfare needs of various social groups. Without having an alternative to the existing order, people become dis-empowered. Ultimately, the reaction is public apathy, which legitimizes authoritive governments. Thus, social science is an ideology, which is affinning the prevailing social, political and economic order.(Reitzes 1993: 36-39, 4|-42). In reality, it is a contradiction to apply the scientific method to social policy making. Any social policy change will alter social relations and affect the relative welfare of classes of people, which makes social decision making nonnative. Social policy is related to politics, which is an extension of ethics. Since values and facts are different categories, one cannot apply indisputable empirical facts to social values. It is therefore impossible to legitimize political decisions with reference to scientific knowledge. Social decision-making is a political process. When science is applied to political and nonnative questions, it becomes an ideology, which supports the dominant interests. Thus, the state reproduces conditions for domination. In case the contradictions become too pronounced, and the power of the state is challenged, then the ideology becomes violent. The consequence is totalitarianism. It is a situation where the state sets limits to what is pennissdale to think and teach, if necessary by coercion. Conclusively social science manipulates reality to serve the vested interests of specific social groups. 'Hue result is a dominant and violent ideology masked as science. (Reitzes l993: 32, 34, 42-45). 

Edited by thatladlogan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am not sure 100 percent what exactly you want, but here are some cards that explore specifically the relationship between women and man and how it leads to patriarchy.

 

 

 I'm not looking for any specific cards, just stuff about gender relations. thanks!

Edited by ethank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try reading Irigaray- its pretty complex and requires some background in gender studies as well as (sorta) psychoanalysis but her arguments on the masculine economy are some of the most nuanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...