Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFeminism's Challenge: Articulating Alternatives to Unsustainable Hierarchies
"What is the most important challenge facing women in the 21st century, and why?"
That one isn't easy for anyone to answer, especially in 300 words
or less. But that was the assignment from editors of the University of Texas'
web site for faculty members contributing to the "Many Voices of
Feminism" collection, which is online at http://www.utexas.edu/
Below are the 306 words that I came up with, not to answer the question but to hint at the compelling reasons we all should commit to feminism and the other progressive social movements that are necessary if there is to be a hope for a decent future, or any future at all.
Given the disastrous consequences of the human assault on the ecosystem that makes our lives possible, the most important 21st-century challenge for women is the same as for men: Can we change the way we organize ourselves socially, politically, and economically in time to reverse this ecological collapse? Can we learn to live in sustainable balance with the non-human world so that we might make it to the end of the 21st century with our humanity intact?
In facing these social, political, and economic challenges, I believe women have a crucial contribution to make through feminism. My own intellectual and political development is rooted in the feminism I learned from women, both in the classroom and community. Much of my work has addressed men's use and abuse of women and their sexuality in the sexual-exploitation industries: prostitution, stripping, and pornography. But from those women I also learned that feminism was not merely a concern for "women's issues" but also a way of understanding power and critiquing the domination/subordination dynamic that is central to so much of modern life. The roots of that dynamic are in patriarchy, the system of male dominance that arose only a few thousand years ago but that has been so destructive to people and the earth. Patriarchy is incompatible with justice and sustainability.
The challenge for feminism is to articulate an alternative to the illegitimate hierarchies that structure our lives: men over women, white over non-white, rich over poor, First World over Third. That isn't "women's work" but "feminism's work," which we all should undertake, in conjunction with the many other intellectual and political movements concerned with real justice. If we can change the way we treat each other, those new non-hierarchical social arrangements may help us solve the fundamental problem of the destruction inherent in human domination over the non-human world.
9 Comments so far
Show AllThis is an excellent article! Thank you Robert Jensen. The feminist perspective is the basis of my own belief system. The masculine and feminine in balance is the first law of the universe, in my mind. Patriarchy has promoted hierarchy, thereby unbalancing the whole of existence. The over-valuation of the masculine causes great stress to both males and females as well as every other living thing. Male supremacy dictates that men have "power over," which translates into "using" everything as though it were actually a possession, i.e., women, animals, land.
Thought Shaman, where are you coming from? Perhaps what you mean is Power Over is detrimental....either in a matriarchy or a patriarchy?
Thought Shaman, where are you coming from? Perhaps what you mean is Power Over is detrimental....either in a matriarchy or a patriarchy?
That is correct. As you describe it "Power Over," or as Robert describes it "the domination/subordination dynamic" is the issue/problem. The patriarchy-matriarchy dimension is a false metric.
The over-valuation of the masculine causes great stress to both males and females as well as every other living thing.
The above is a cultural statement. For instance, a significant part what we in the West describe as "masculine" maps to what some in India consider "feminine." To them power is female. Even the desire for power/status is classified as a female emotion.
If we are to improve the condition of people the world over, it is better to go beyond the male-female metric and focus on suffusing the human civilization with egalitarian values.
Robert,
It has been a while since you have appeared on the MSM cable networks.
It is good that you write ...feminism was not merely a concern for "women's issues" but also a way of understanding power and critiquing the domination/subordination dynamic that is central to so much of modern life... "
However, you immediately spoil it with the next sentence. The roots of that dynamic are in patriarchy, the system of male dominance that arose only a few thousand years ago but that has been so destructive to people and the earth. Patriarchy is incompatible with justice and sustainability.
The cause is the latter part of the first statment not the second one. Patriarchy, or for that matter Matriarchy (yes you do not say it, but there is a possible implication) has nothing to do with it. Check out the female dominated societies of Meghalaya, India, and the Nairs in Southern India. One can make a case that a matriarchy has treated the males of their societies worse than patriarchies have treated women in culturally similar/related communities. For instance, the matriarchical society of Meghalaya educates its daughters instead of sons, and that has resulted in the younger women marrying outside their communities because the "men are uneducated." Reverse the scenario, at least the men *marry* the women from their communities.
Another (very likely politically incorrect) example right here in the USA. We hear a lot about "deadbeat dads." However, has anyone even bothered to study how many women end up choosing to have kids with irresponsible men, eventually leaving the responsible men to care for "additional" children?
The cause is, as you put it, the "domination/subordination dynamic that is central to so much of modern life." It is good that your investigation into feminism has brought this aspect out. It is time to treat the feminist perspective as part of the broader struggle. The Patriarchy dimension, while providing an interesting topic of academic study, is ultimately a false metric.
Sioux Rose
False "metric" my ass! You find a few insignificant societies and use them as a basis for trying to discount centuries of war based on patriarchal religious programming. The more enlightened view would be to recognize how this dominator mentality establishes itself. As I've made abundantly clear, there is a mythological explanation which itself reflects wisely upon the inviolate archetypes of time. Jung and followers of Jungian psychology recognize the viability of these personality types.
I am not aware of the references you provided from India, but I do know matriarchal societies that were more EGALITARIAN existed before the male understood his role in birth, and decided that the best way to insure his lineage was by controlling, or better yet OWNING the female. Slavery likely resulted from this first wedge in the UNION, the intended BALANCE between he and she. Nor does modern India show respect for the female, as it's generally FEMALE babies found dead... and the caste system mocks the very essence of love or natural attraction, turning marriage into a business transaction.
How do you think women feel when the reference to the diety is ALWAYS made in the masculine? How do you think we felt growing up hearing everything addressed through the male pronoun? "All MEN are created equal" style. That tests were done on men (medical) with results generalized to women. Have you ever read Susan Faludi's book, "Backlash"? One key criteria she points out is that for the purpose of defining the legal definition of insanity, only MALE psychiatrists had any input. I could raise HUNDREDS of examples, but time is short. You're blinded by your sexo-centricism!
False "metric" my ass! You find a few insignificant societies and use them as a basis for trying to discount centuries of war based on patriarchal religious programming.
What would you consider to be "insignificant societies?" What metrics would you use to determine them?
Wars due to religious programming has little to do with the patriarchy-matriarchy dimension. Rather, the problem is the belief in an external "controller deity." It results from a belief that "law is given to people by the divine" and "must be imposed." For those who wish to have a deity, a better way to go about life is to focus on the concept of immanence, i.e. "the god within," and encourage the transformation of the individual along egalitarian principles.
How do you think women feel when the reference to the diety is ALWAYS made in the masculine?
This again is a cultural reference. There are cultures that have no issue with envisioning deity in both female and male forms. Sadly in some of the said cultures (e.g. in India) the woman can be a mother, a wife, a goddess, a daughter, a queen, but not a sexual being.
I am not aware of the references you provided from India, but I do know matriarchal societies that were more EGALITARIAN existed before the male understood his role in birth, and decided that the best way to insure his lineage was by controlling, or better yet OWNING the female. Slavery likely resulted from this first wedge in the UNION, the intended BALANCE between he and she. ... and the caste system mocks the very essence of love or natural attraction, turning marriage into a business transaction.
This exhibits a variant of the "argument from authority" fallacy (as in the use of word "intended"), and itself exhibits a "the male must learn his place" hierarchical bias.
The caste system is one of the biggest con jobs on the face of the planet. Sadly, even most Indians do not understand this con. No Indian language has a native word for "religion." In practice, the dynamics of religion in the West maps well to a caste in the Indian context (although there is also an economic aspect to this as well, which makes the subject more complex). In essence, the caste system is a variant of religious/class discrimination.
Marriage has been a business transaction through much of human civilization. The notion has evolved over time and continues to evolve, e.g. the fight for "gay marriage" is now a civil rights issue.
How do you think we felt growing up hearing everything addressed through the male pronoun? "All MEN are created equal" style. That tests were done on men (medical) with results generalized to women. Have you ever read Susan Faludi's book, "Backlash"? One key criteria she points out is that for the purpose of defining the legal definition of insanity, only MALE psychiatrists had any input.
These are all valid issues. Especially, the very stupid formulation of "All MEN are created equal." In addition to the sexist nonsense, the statement itself presumes inequality by invoking a higher authority.
My thesis is to point out that these are part of the broader struggle that underscore the impetus for the human civilization to adopt (more) egalitarian principles, and has really nothing to do with the Patriarchy-Matriarchy dimension. The patriarchical dominance in societies is a symptom, not the cause of the problems that arise due to inequality.
You're blinded by your sexo-centricism!
Are you angry at me, or are you angry that someone pointed out a flaw in the thesis that you arrived at due to a lot of analysis and effort?
Sioux Rose
You want to see it through your prism, and it's a narrow prism. I do NOT agree. Dismissing the rampant SEXISM that is the FOCAL point of religion, and not really acknowledging the degree to which it's narrowed the participation, expression, validation of WOMEN in so many societies for centuries... all based on a masculine PATRIARCHAL father-knows-best God, as if the points I raised are just a matter of culture is either blind-sided (on your end) or disengenuous.
I understand the dominator "thing" and I have MANY times in this forum related how much this accords with the archetype of Mars. This is a decidedly MASCULINE energy, even if some women--like those who think proving themselves means measuring against what men can and often do do (now there's a metric for you)--emulate it. And obviously some men, chefs/massage therapists/gardeners/artists/musicians identify more strongly with the VENUS YIN champion of creative expression and the arts as archetype.
In some ways we do agree... but you discount something so fundamental that it makes you come off as utterly insensitive to half the human race just because you want to use a particular frame to reference what we're both fighting (lack of equality or social justice or fair representative in world societies). I find it amusing that you presume you "won" this argument. What arrogance. A more enlightened view would be you recognize your blind spot and agree to disagree. You have not (in this life) experienced life in the feminine gender, so you're the armchair philosopher on this one. I've been on the front lines.
Dismissing the rampant SEXISM that is the FOCAL point of religion, and not really acknowledging the degree to which it's narrowed the participation, expression, validation of WOMEN in so many societies for centuries...
Sexism exists, so does classism, etc. Nowhere do I dispute or dismiss this. For the record, by somehow implying that I have asserted so, you fall afoul of the classic "strawman fallacy."
If you go back and read my posts I challenge only one assertion and that is "Patriarchy is the root cause..." Jensen observes that the "domination/subordination dynamic is central to modern life." I happen to agree. However, he asserts that the root cause is a patriarchical system. I point out that he has the casuality reversed. By illustrating that there exist both patriarchical and matriarchical systems that exhibit inequality, I posit that it is the "domination/subordination dynamic" that is the root cause, and that patriarchical domination is but a symptom of this dynamic. In short, Jensen's thesis is upside down.
I understand the dominator "thing" and I have MANY times in this forum related how much this accords with the archetype of Mars. This is a decidedly MASCULINE energy, even if some women--like those who think proving themselves means measuring against what men can and often do do (now there's a metric for you)--emulate it. And obviously some men, chefs/massage therapists/gardeners/artists/musicians identify more strongly with the VENUS YIN champion of creative expression and the arts as archetype.
Positing/utilizing some archetypes, and then expecting that others must agree with the said archetypes, and further must accept a framework of analysis that utilizes these concepts is pretty strange.
In some ways we do agree... but you discount something so fundamental that it makes you come off as utterly insensitive to half the human race just because you want to use a particular frame to reference what we're both fighting (lack of equality or social justice or fair representative in world societies). I find it amusing that you presume you "won" this argument. What arrogance. A more enlightened view would be you recognize your blind spot and agree to disagree. You have not (in this life) experienced life in the feminine gender, so you're the armchair philosopher on this one. I've been on the front lines.
This is simply an ad hominem attack based on unstated assumptions.
It appears that the cause of discomfort is a perceived challenge to a cherished framework. Abstractions are maps and are not the same as the territory. To paraphrase Werner Heisenberg "Every concept, as clear as it may seem to be, has a limited range of applicability." The validity of a framework/thesis partly derives from challenges to its applicability, and its adaptation to such challenges.
Sioux Rose
I admire Jensen for seeking to understand the roots of all forms of injustice, even those that are inconvenient truths to a great many men who pay feminism lip service, but have never really taken the time to understand why the second class status alloted to women across HIS-story makes a very strong difference in the kind of lives we are ALL living today.
RAY: Sounds like a book worth reading, thank you for relating the title.
Ray Berthiaume
Well put! I have been amazed at how significant true feminism is in giving a truer perspective on human living. I was recently surprised at a different twist on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity by Elizabeth Johnson in her book SHE WHO IS.