altariel: (Default)
altariel ([personal profile] altariel) wrote2006-10-12 11:04 am

Typology of feminism

So, in undergraduate textbooks and so on, you tend to see feminism taught as being one of "three types": liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism. Does anyone have any idea where this typology came from? Rough date, origin(ator), etc.?

Re: AHHH!

(Anonymous) 2006-10-14 03:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah yes, God is dead-Nietzsche, Nietzsche is dead-God. At least he did not fail his cardinal test: thou shalt not lack chutzpah! ;-)

To the degree that he shed light on the (needed) death of a middle-class idol, more power to him. If he did so by claiming too much, it's not the first time and at least nobody died from his overreaching. And while I understand your objection to subjecting mystery to dissection, honestly, I get tired of "It's a mystery!" stopping analysis. We can do analysis and still have mystery; they are not exclusive when the mystery is supposed to be God, imo, or it's not God we're talking about anyway. In which case, I think there's probably some wisdom to saying "Let's kill the idol!"

My two cents as an agnostic.

Dwim

Re: AHHH!

[identity profile] wiseheart.livejournal.com 2006-10-14 04:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it all depends on the question whether or not you have an analytical mind. Me, I don't and all that dissecting and analyzing always seemed fairly forced to me. I even used to laugh myself silly on literature lessons where we were supposed to analyze poems - I never managed to see the same things in them that the poet supposedly meant.

So, I don't have any problems with other people cut everything into tiny pieces to see how they work. It just never works for me. *shrug*

I think we shouldn't clutter [livejournal.com profile] altariel1's journal with this any longer. But if you want to discuss it further, you know where you find me. :)