When I finished reading this piece, I was angry. After taking a few days to cool off, I know why this article upsets me. Mansfield is incredibly vague; his ambiguity creates overarching claims against women and feminists. His definition of feminism and women bothers me. Firstly, are there really two kinds of feminism and are they really defined as "moderate" and "radical?" Also, who are these women? All women? He never says who these women and feminists are. When feminist articles have some doubts about patriarchy, they are very specific about who is involved, where it happens, how it happens, etc. That is one of the reasons for the wide array of "academic varieties" of feminism. His definition of the "radical" feminist sounds like the stereotypical "femi-nazi" (thanks, Limbaugh). Does that feminist even exist? According to Mansfield, feminism is Neo-Marxist. This is a specific type of feminism. Not all feminism is Neo-Marxist. In fact, there are feminists who do not agree with Marx; yes, Engels made a contribution to feminism, but that does not mean feminism is Neo-Marxist. In regard to his claim that Freud is a "progenitor of American feminism," it takes more than a statement that women have sexual desire to make one a "feminist." Freud also made women into neurotics, encouraged (created?) the myth of the vaginal orgasm, and his psychoanalysis was used to promote rigid sex roles. Mansfield's book report about The Second Sex was wanting. He did not understand even the basic definition of de Beauvoir's transcendence. I don't think he read the book (or at least carefully) since it answers some of his lingering questions on page 293 of his article (Maybe I'll send him the new, complete translation...). If he is going to make claims about feminism as a theory and it's origins, he should at least get basic facts correct, all of which he could have easily obtained in any basic WGS/feminism/women's studies class. Or he could even buy Feminism for Dummies, I'm sure it exists.
Mansfield over simplifies. The family, according to Mansfield, is the centerpiece of the article. When he discusses family it is the "traditional" (non-existent) family. He does not want to challenge notions of family and gender/sex roles. Why should we simply accept that "sex roles are necessary to the family?" We measure the success of a type of family in terms that are defined by patriarchal capitalism. Why are illegitimacy, single parenthood, divorce, and abortion rates signs of failing family?
In short, he makes incorrect, broad and sweeping claims. He does not substantiate any of his arguments or define key ideas in his argument. The article is blatantly sexist and never makes an attempt to conceal that fact.
Feminism strives to change the patriarchal society we live in. Therefore it makes no sense to gauge its success in patriarchal terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment