Comments on: The Evolution of the Feminist http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/20/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert W. Stapler http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/20/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/comment-page-1/#comment-34358 Robert W. Stapler Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:32:53 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/#comment-34358 I thought it might be interesting to see how Ms. Kipnis' book fares among fellow feminists. If, as Chapin alleges, she has skewered some feminist beliefs, I’d expect more dogmatic feminists to take her to task. There are, of course, more moderate feminists who can be expected to agree with her, but that’s because they’ve said the same things long ago. Then there are those who can be counted on to praise her regardless simply because she firmly declares herself a feminists, and are blind to the things she says so long as it doesn’t mock them. Another possibility is Chapin has it all wrong; that she is every bit the feminist she claims to be and her point is women are too much hung up on men and need to shuck us to succeed. Or, as at least one reviewer has it, should use and discard men (see 3 below). Certainly, some of Kipnis’ fantasies support this last interpretation. Here are a few typical samples of what’s out there: 1. http://arlindo-correia.com/051106.html only critical reviews to be found 2. http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/10/18/kipnis/index_np.html defends work without ever telling us what’s in it 3. http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/community/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=6372 favorable with content - similar appraisal to yours 4. http://www.bookforum.com/bentley.html supports Kipnis is ranting against men 5. http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/11/the_female_thing.html describes work as the musings of a feminist without any particular conclusions. 6. http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375424175 publisher’s blurb describing it as “provocative assessment of the female condition. 7. http://www.observer.com/20061023/20061023_Sheelah_Kolhatkar_pageone_newsstory4.asp 8. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006/entertainment/what_a_girl_wants_entertainment_sara_stewart.htm even the NY Post finds her witty 9. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1724462/posts even the freepers don’t see it (maybe) The one thing I come away with from all these discussions of her work is ‘women, feminists notwithstanding, are horribly preoccupied with sex and with all of its mental contortions’, far more than are men. Men may exhaust ourselves satisfying a particular infatuation or tie ourselves in knots convincing that special woman to marry us, but beyond that and maintaining the relation we go on to other stuff. What I have to wonder is that feminists like Kipnis complain repeatedly of running into inexplicable barriers everywhere (e.g., glass-ceilings, declining rates of women entering workforce, urges to clean toilets, &c) without ever considering they might be bucking human-nature more than it is capable of yielding. It may be asking too much to also expect them to see the damage done in pursuit of their feminist utopia, but I’d be happy knowing they’re infusing a bit of realism. The other thing I’d comment on is Kipnis herself. This is a woman who has built a career on undermining other people’s values. She puts doctor in front of her name and has written four books (The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability; Against Love: A Polemic; Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, Gender, and Aesthetics; Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America), all of which appear focused on lustfully dysfunctional relationships infused with feminist thought, often with herself cited as exemplar. Her university bio (http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/rtf/faculty/Laura_Kipnis/) describes her as a “cultural theorist/critic and former video artist” with the Northwestern University, School of Communication, Radio/Television/Film department. None of her books appear to be more than personal observations and self-analysis. She has spent her career studying and interpreting how the world operates only through the lens of Hollywood (film/theater/television). She cites no academic publications and none of the credentials you’d expect of an academic (but, then, neither do half her fellow faculty). Turns out she is not a doctor, only a professor who has been dubbed “Dr. Laura” by some enthusiast. Anyway, my point is she is about as much an expert on her chosen topics as I am on politics. The adage goes: “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.” Kipnis appears to have been one of the latter until she discovered writing. She is one more overpaid enthusiast with sufficient (if unexceptional) writing skills and time on her hands to pen a series of polemics sufficiently lurid of subject to garner notable profits while avoiding damage to her pseudo-academic standing. She may appear the rank-breaking moderate (and I’m sure she cultivates the image), but she’s got all the earmarks of a radical anti-traditionalist who wants to keep them coming back for more. No, I don’t see that she has much to teach us. The wonder is not that she asks questions; the wonder is she doesn’t come up with answers that make any sense. Her faux-iconoclasm may lull us into thinking ‘finally, here’s a feminist with a reasoning and reasonable mind’, but I don’t think so. She goes just so far proffering an olive branch before using it to whip us into her way of thinking. She doesn’t want to acknowledge the gulf between feminine and feminist, she wants us to abandon the solid ground of values for the quicksand of anything goes. I thought it might be interesting to see how Ms. Kipnis’ book fares among fellow feminists. If, as Chapin alleges, she has skewered some feminist beliefs, I’d expect more dogmatic feminists to take her to task. There are, of course, more moderate feminists who can be expected to agree with her, but that’s because they’ve said the same things long ago. Then there are those who can be counted on to praise her regardless simply because she firmly declares herself a feminists, and are blind to the things she says so long as it doesn’t mock them. Another possibility is Chapin has it all wrong; that she is every bit the feminist she claims to be and her point is women are too much hung up on men and need to shuck us to succeed. Or, as at least one reviewer has it, should use and discard men (see 3 below). Certainly, some of Kipnis’ fantasies support this last interpretation. Here are a few typical samples of what’s out there:

1. http://arlindo-correia.com/051106.html only critical reviews to be found

2. http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/10/18/kipnis/index_np.html defends work without ever telling us what’s in it

3. http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/community/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=6372 favorable with content – similar appraisal to yours

4. http://www.bookforum.com/bentley.html supports Kipnis is ranting against men

5. http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/11/the_female_thing.html describes work as the musings of a feminist without any particular conclusions.

6. http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375424175 publisher’s blurb describing it as “provocative assessment of the female condition.

7. http://www.observer.com/20061023/20061023_Sheelah_Kolhatkar_pageone_newsstory4.asp

8. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006/entertainment/what_a_girl_wants_entertainment_sara_stewart.htm even the NY Post finds her witty

9. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1724462/posts even the freepers don’t see it (maybe)

The one thing I come away with from all these discussions of her work is ‘women, feminists notwithstanding, are horribly preoccupied with sex and with all of its mental contortions’, far more than are men. Men may exhaust ourselves satisfying a particular infatuation or tie ourselves in knots convincing that special woman to marry us, but beyond that and maintaining the relation we go on to other stuff. What I have to wonder is that feminists like Kipnis complain repeatedly of running into inexplicable barriers everywhere (e.g., glass-ceilings, declining rates of women entering workforce, urges to clean toilets, &c) without ever considering they might be bucking human-nature more than it is capable of yielding. It may be asking too much to also expect them to see the damage done in pursuit of their feminist utopia, but I’d be happy knowing they’re infusing a bit of realism.

The other thing I’d comment on is Kipnis herself. This is a woman who has built a career on undermining other people’s values. She puts doctor in front of her name and has written four books (The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability; Against Love: A Polemic; Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, Gender, and Aesthetics; Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America), all of which appear focused on lustfully dysfunctional relationships infused with feminist thought, often with herself cited as exemplar. Her university bio (http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/rtf/faculty/Laura_Kipnis/) describes her as a “cultural theorist/critic and former video artist” with the Northwestern University, School of Communication, Radio/Television/Film department. None of her books appear to be more than personal observations and self-analysis. She has spent her career studying and interpreting how the world operates only through the lens of Hollywood (film/theater/television). She cites no academic publications and none of the credentials you’d expect of an academic (but, then, neither do half her fellow faculty). Turns out she is not a doctor, only a professor who has been dubbed “Dr. Laura” by some enthusiast. Anyway, my point is she is about as much an expert on her chosen topics as I am on politics. The adage goes: “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.” Kipnis appears to have been one of the latter until she discovered writing. She is one more overpaid enthusiast with sufficient (if unexceptional) writing skills and time on her hands to pen a series of polemics sufficiently lurid of subject to garner notable profits while avoiding damage to her pseudo-academic standing.

She may appear the rank-breaking moderate (and I’m sure she cultivates the image), but she’s got all the earmarks of a radical anti-traditionalist who wants to keep them coming back for more. No, I don’t see that she has much to teach us. The wonder is not that she asks questions; the wonder is she doesn’t come up with answers that make any sense. Her faux-iconoclasm may lull us into thinking ‘finally, here’s a feminist with a reasoning and reasonable mind’, but I don’t think so. She goes just so far proffering an olive branch before using it to whip us into her way of thinking. She doesn’t want to acknowledge the gulf between feminine and feminist, she wants us to abandon the solid ground of values for the quicksand of anything goes.

]]> By: nevadamistermom http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/20/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/comment-page-1/#comment-34099 nevadamistermom Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:00:00 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/#comment-34099 Uh, maybe I'm missing something here. Although it's mildly interesting that conservatives might find some miniscule patch of common ground with an avowed Feminist, I'm still not sure why I would benefit from reading even one page of a book that could be summed up as: A) A Feminist utopia is a worthy objective... B) ...but we Feminists have only ourselves to blame for not achieving it. I simply can't get past A). It's a show-stopper as far as I'm concerned. Uh, maybe I’m missing something here. Although it’s mildly interesting that conservatives might find some miniscule patch of common ground with an avowed Feminist, I’m still not sure why I would benefit from reading even one page of a book that could be summed up as:

A) A Feminist utopia is a worthy objective…

B) …but we Feminists have only ourselves to blame for not achieving it.

I simply can’t get past A). It’s a show-stopper as far as I’m concerned.

]]> By: Ron S. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/20/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/comment-page-1/#comment-34032 Ron S. Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:13:24 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/#comment-34032 Thanks for stealing my comment, sedonaman. :) I cringe when people use the word 'deserve' when they really mean 'want'. Those tv commercials about mortgage loans ("Get the loan that you deserve!") make me want to change the channel. You don't deserve a loan and you don't deserve a utopia. You can ask for both, but you certainly don't have a right to either. Well, I must admit I'm impressed that a reviewer here didn't just pan the book and nitpick the things he didn't like about it. It seems a fair review. Thanks for stealing my comment, sedonaman. :) I cringe when people use the word ‘deserve’ when they really mean ‘want’. Those tv commercials about mortgage loans (“Get the loan that you deserve!”) make me want to change the channel. You don’t deserve a loan and you don’t deserve a utopia. You can ask for both, but you certainly don’t have a right to either.

Well, I must admit I’m impressed that a reviewer here didn’t just pan the book and nitpick the things he didn’t like about it. It seems a fair review.

]]> By: sedonaman http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/20/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/comment-page-1/#comment-34026 sedonaman Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:37:23 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-evolution-of-the-feminist/#comment-34026 "...their own 'inner woman' ... acts as the biggest barrier to women realizing the progressive utopia they deserve." Why do women deserve to live in a utopia, progressive or otherwise? “…their own ‘inner woman’ … acts as the biggest barrier to women realizing the progressive utopia they deserve.”

Why do women deserve to live in a utopia, progressive or otherwise?

]]>