Third Wave Feminism is Basically Vivisection of the Cultural Nomos

[crossfire]

I created this thread to avoid further hijacking of the survey thread so @Revoltingest can ask questions in order to get a better understanding. Anyone else can join in if they like.

background info:

What is Feminism, and how does it relate to Animus Individuation?

So, what parts need clarification?

 

[crossfire]

More info for this discussion:
"The difference between feminism and egalitarianism is that feminism actively uncovers and critiques the cultural nomos, which feminists call "The Patriarchy." (Feminism is antinomian.)"

 

[Tumah]

So, what parts need clarification?

Can we start with the part of your post's title that sounds like it takes place in the operating room?

 

[Revoltingest]

I find anything beyond equal rights & liberties to be needless
(& sometimes counter-productive) embellishment.
It's analogous to taking atheism, & claiming it's more than
not believing in gods, eg, anti-religion, communism.

People be taking their personal interpretation of "feminism",
& claiming it's the "True" one...the others being wrong, eg,
to legalize prostitution is anti-feminist.
Advance women's rights by denying them a right? Nah.

 

[Estro Felino]

Could you explain it briefly? So we can all understand

 

[crossfire]

Can we start with the part of your post's title that sounds like it takes place in the operating room?

Certainly. The nomos refers to the collective cultural and political habits that usually lie just below the consciousness of individuals. It is taken as "self evident," or "part of our DNA" and so it is rarely brought into consciousness and examined.
The Greeks referred to Nomos as a Daimon, a sort of entity that is the interface between humans and the gods.

I'm using the word vivisection in the sense that Third Wave feminism's examination and analysis of the cultural nomos is very thorough, investigating how different aspects of the cultural nomos intersect and interact with each other, that it can be very uncomfortable, that it can cause distress, and that the Greeks personified nomos as a daimon. This metaphorical personification of nomos can be carried through to the metaphorical "live animal testing" aspect of vivisection.

 

[crossfire]

Could you explain it briefly? So we can all understand

Your best bet would be to read the linked article and ask questions about what you don't understand.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm. I have been told previously that third wave feminism is significantly different from other waves, which seem to be labeled by chronological order. Different to the point of actual mutual incompatibility, perhaps.

The eventual goal seems to be egalitarian in nature, but that may be difficult to tell for certain and is probably of little practical significance, at least in the foreseeable future.

That, because the present time stances are of course more significant than those of a hypothetical future. And those current stances of TWF (if I may use this shorthand) involve mainly exposing and challenging the male-normative thinking that are peppered through so much of current culture, for various purposes, of which furthering the rate of cultural change is not necessarily the most significant.

I have a hunch that another such purpose, perhaps a more urgent one, is offering a voice, an expression channel, a lamplight if you will for those women who would otherwise end up being told to be patient and suffer subtle, often unconscious and even unintentional discrimination "until things change". Which I find understandable; such advice, well intentioned as it may sometimes be, amounts to an appeal for suffering in silence. And silent suffering is horrendously harmful.

How accurate does this sound, @crossfire ? I welcome comments that might help in furthering my grasp of this subject matter.

 

[crossfire]

I find anything beyond equal rights & liberties to be needless
(& sometimes counter-productive) embellishment.
It's analogous to taking atheism, & claiming it's more than
not believing in gods, eg, anti-religion, communism.

People be taking their personal interpretation of "feminism",
& claiming it's the "True" one...the others being wrong, eg,
to legalize prostitution is anti-feminist.
Advance women's rights by denying them a right? Nah.

If you notice some of the cultural practices that are harmful to women like female circumscision, you will notice that these practices are often perpetuated by women. Jung would refer to this as animus disfunction--authoritarian enforcement of opinion is indicative of very low level animus development--the Thug or Man of Physical Power stage. Part of animus individuation for women is examining her opinions and separating the content from the cultural nomos from what she thinks for herself. Feminism delves into examination of the cultural nomos (which feminism refers to as The Patriarchy,) and brings it into consciousness for intelligent examination. If you agree with Carl Jung, then this would be a necessary component of a woman's becoming a mature individual.

I understand that you may not agree with Carl Jung in this regard.

 

[crossfire]

Hmm. I have been told previously that third wave feminism is significantly different from other waves, which seem to be labeled by chronological order. Different to the point of actual mutual incompatibility, perhaps.

The eventual goal seems to be egalitarian in nature, but that may be difficult to tell for certain and is probably of little practical significance, at least in the foreseeable future.

That, because the present time stances are of course more significant than those of a hypothetical future. And those current stances of TWF (if I may use this shorthand) involve mainly exposing and challenging the male-normative thinking that are peppered through so much of current culture, for various purposes, of which furthering the rate of cultural change is not necessarily the most significant.

I have a hunch that another such purpose, perhaps a more urgent one, is offering a voice, an expression channel, a lamplight if you will for those women who would otherwise end up being told to be patient and suffer subtle, often unconscious and even unintentional discrimination "until things change". Which I find understandable; such advice, well intentioned as it may sometimes be, amounts to an appeal for suffering in silence. And silent suffering is horrendously harmful.

How accurate does this sound, @crossfire ? I welcome comments that might help in furthering my grasp of this subject matter.

Yes, bringing these unconscious cultural wounds to the surface is necessary for healing instead of repressing them and continuing to allow them to fester in the unconscious.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you notice some of the cultural practices that are harmful to women like female circumscision, you will notice that these practices are often perpetuated by women. Jung would refer to this as animus disfunction--authoritarian enforcement of opinion is indicative of very low level animus development--the Thug of man of physical power stage. Part of animus individuation for women is examining her opinions and separating the content from the cultural nomos from what she thinks for herself. Feminism delves into examination of the cultural nomos (which feminism refers to as "The Patriarchy,) and brings it into consciousness for intelligent examination. If you agree with Carl Jung, then this would be a necessary component of a woman's becoming a mature individual.

I understand that you may not agree with Carl Jung in this regard.

I don't Jung.
You speak from a frame of reference very foreign to me.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not consider myself an authority on Third Wave Feminism. However, based on what little I know of it, I think Third Wave Feminism has rectified some oversights and errors of Second Wave Feminism -- especially concerning people of colour and the LGBT+ community. I also think that it has created some powerful analytic approaches to understanding oppression and societies. The work of Bell Hooks in particular is a national and international treasure -- as is she herself.

However, I believe far and away too many of its current practitioners at the very least flirt with authoritarianism, dogmatism, virtue signalling, and other heinous practices. They do feminism no favors, and in many cases seem to actually undermine it. That is, they have gravelly damaged feminism as a political movement -- outside of academia and a few other niche venues.

My two cents. Your mileage may vary.

 

[crossfire]

I don't Jung.
You speak from a frame of reference very foreign to me.

OK, here is a link to a Jungian lexicon for explanation of some of the terms depicted on this Jungian map of the psyche:
The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto

A very brief explanation of some of the terms:
Ego: the representation of the center of the conscious mind and interface with reality.
Persona: The mask that we present to the sociological outer world.
Anima/Animus: The mask that is presented to the inner unconscious psyche (much like the persona is the mask presented to the outer world.) If you are a man, this interface is the feminine part of a man often representing how the individual perceives women and is the comforting aspect for when a man becomes introspective and turns inward, using the relational consciousness of eros. If you are a woman, this mask presented to the inner psyche is masculine, uses the mental consciousness of logos, and functions like an unconscious mind in women. Again, it often takes on the behavior of how the woman perceives men--as thugs/men of power, as men of action/romance, as clerics, or as spiritual guides.
Shadow: contains repressed psychological content--our "dark side."
Self: represents the center of the entire psyche, both conscious and unconscious (much as ego represents the center of the conscious mind.)
Personal Unconscious: unconscious content that is unique to the individual
Collective Unconscious: this is where collective content such as the cultural nomos resides.

 

[crossfire]

I do not consider myself an authority on Third Wave Feminism. However, based on what little I know of it, I think Third Wave Feminism has rectified some oversights and errors of Second Wave Feminism -- especially concerning people of colour and the LGBT+ community. I also think that it has created some powerful analytic approaches to understanding oppression and societies. The work of Bell Hooks in particular is a national and international treasure -- as is she herself.

However, I believe far and away too many of its current practitioners at the very least flirt with authoritarianism, dogmatism, virtue signalling, and other heinous practices. They do feminism no favors, and in many cases seem to actually undermine it. That is, they have gravelly damaged feminism as a political movement -- outside of academia and a few other niche venues.

My two cents. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, authoritarianism (feminazis) depicts the lower stage of animus development: thug stage. Social Justice Warriors might be likened to the man of action/romance stage of animus development.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, here is a link to a Jungian lexicon for explanation of some of the terms depicted on this Jungian map of the psyche:
The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto

A very brief explanation of some of the terms:
Ego: the representation of the center of the conscious mind and interface with reality.
Persona: The mask that we present to the sociological outer world.
Anima/Animus: The mask that is presented to the inner unconscious psyche (much like the persona is the mask presented to the outer world.) If you are a man, this interface is the feminine part of a man often representing how the individual perceives women and is the comforting aspect for when a man becomes introspective and turns inward, using the relational consciousness of eros. If you are a woman, this mask presented to the inner psyche is masculine, uses the mental consciousness of logos, and functions like an unconscious mind in women. Again, it often takes on the behavior of how the woman perceives men--as thugs/men of power, as men of action/romance, as clerics, or as spiritual guides.
Shadow: contains repressed psycological content--our "dark side."
Self: represents the center of the entire psyche, both conscious and unconscious (much as ego represents the center of the conscious mind.)
Personal Unconsious: unconscious content that is unique to the individual
Collective Unconscious: this is where collective content such as the cultural nomos resides.
View attachment 33140

I thank you for the effort, but I'll pass on the Jungian perspective.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, bringing these unconscious cultural wounds to the surface is necessary for healing instead of repressing them and continuing to allow them to fester in the unconscious.

Yes, but if I understand your point, it is a step along the path, not the destination.

In this sense, IMO, equality is not the goal. Perhaps it is a necessary process of exercising defunct cultural norms.

IOW, I don't want equality for myself, I want to be me. Whatever that is. I want to be happy who I am. Not measure myself to the guy or gal down the block. I want the freedom to be me. If I get that, equality is irrelevant.

Cultural norms in some cases can prevent people from being free to accept themselves and really being happy.

 

[SomeRandom]

I used to be highly critical of third wave feminism. Perhaps I’m just too foreign to American culture to understand its critiques properly. We have our own cultural problems. Or perhaps I was too indignant and ignorant of my own contribution to the “patriarchy.” And just reacted too hot-headedly to fair criticism of myself and the culture around me.

Virtue signalling is also rather distasteful more often than not.
As is outrage culture and cancel culture. But I suppose those elements aren’t unique to third wave feminism or even today’s generation.

 

[Stevicus]

I created this thread to avoid further hijacking of the survey thread so @Revoltingest can ask questions in order to get a better understanding. Anyone else can join in if they like.

background info:

What is Feminism, and how does it relate to Animus Individuation?

So, what parts need clarification?

Does one need to have a PhD in Gender Studies to be able to understand third wave feminism? Why not use simpler language so that the Great Unwashed can understand? Or, as they say on Reddit, "ELI5."

 

[crossfire]

Does one need to have a PhD in Gender Studies to be able to understand third wave feminism? Why not use simpler language so that the Great Unwashed can understand? Or, as they say on Reddit, "ELI5."

Third wave feminism deeply questions the unquestionable, and it makes people uncomfortable.

 

[Stevicus]

Third wave feminism deeply questions the unquestionable, and it makes people uncomfortable.

I grew up during the 60s and 70s, and while I didn't know it at the time, I've since been told that that was the era of "second wave feminism." However, back then, it was called "Women's Lib." I'm sure it made many people uncomfortable back then as well, although the basic concepts of equality were easy enough for most people to grasp.

I've also come to understand that "third wave feminism" came about in the 1980s and 90s - and I did notice that the rhetoric and direction started to change from what I remembered in earlier decades. It wasn't until years later that I was told that that was "third wave feminism."

Still, a pivotal moment for me in my understanding of gender politics was around 1990 when there was an all-women college in California which was facing declining enrollment and made a business decision to start admitting men. (I believe it was Mills College.) This led to a crescendo of outrage and opposition from the female student body, who didn't want men to be admitted. They were quite adamant and zealous about it. This was confusing to me, since there were recent cases of women being allowed to attend previously all-male institutions, so it seemed only natural that men would also be allowed to attend all-female institutions.

Some people saw it as hypocritical and a double standard that women would demand to be allowed into all-male institutions, yet rejecting men from all-female institutions. It appeared that feminism was morphing from its previous view of "equality means equality" to something more complicated, esoteric, and inconsistent. This is about the same time all the in-group jargon started to crop up, along with the phenomenon known as "political correctness," which was practically non-existent in the 60s and 70s. Back then, there was a certain brash outspokenness where the catch phrase was "tell it like it is." By the 80s and 90s, people seemed more inclined to tone it down and "tell it like it isn't."

In the years since the turn of the century, I've noticed more and more of a reaction against it. I've also heard that there's now a "fourth wave feminism" out there. How many waves of feminism do they need before they can get it right?