Conservative Feminism?

[Eileen]

So, I rubbed some folks the wrong way by calling into question Sarah Palin's feminism. Rather than remaining flagrantly biased against the notion that conservatives can be feminists, I would like to know what conservative feminism looks like. If the objective of feminism is to ensure a fairer, safer, more just, more equitable world for women, how would a conservative feminist strive for that?

Also, what is Sarah Palin doing that is pro-woman? And is it (or should it be) enough if she is just breaking this huge barrier and is the first woman this close to the presidency?

[Peguy]

What exactly do you mean by conservative? Are you referring to the Republican Party, or the Political philosophical tradition of men like Edmund Burke?

[ZiL]

Well, whichever category it is that Sarah Palin belongs to, exactly. I'm guessing more Republican party than anything else?

[Eileen]

Let's go with Sarah Palin-conservative--social conservative Republican.

[Peguy]

Well, whichever category it is that Sarah Palin belongs to, exactly. I'm guessing more Republican party than anything else?

Probably. As to the question of conservative feminism; many early early feminists upheld positions that would be considered "conservative" by today's standards. Example: many of the early feminists were staunchly against abortion and upheld the importance of the home and motherhood to the innate nature of women. This was even true for Betty Friedman.

[Lateralus]

Define feminist. Is it someone who follows the stereotypical feminist political view? Or is it someone who is doing something that they believe benefits women?

[booyalab]

If the objective of feminism is to ensure a fairer, safer, more just, more equitable world for women, how would a conservative feminist strive for that?


Rather than remaining flagrantly biased against the notion that you can talk about more justice and equality for one group without sounding like the "some animals are more equal than others" quote from Animal Farm, I'll just say.... gun rights.

[Jack Flak]

A very, very, very good point. The Great Equalizer.

[Orangey]

Probably. As to the question of conservative feminism; many early early feminists upheld positions that would be considered "conservative" by today's standards. Example: many of the early feminists were staunchly against abortion and upheld the importance of the home and motherhood to the innate nature of women. This was even true for Betty Friedman.

Do you mean Betty Friedan? The feminine mystique? I may be mistaken, but wasn't that book devoted entirely to the critique of the idea that women are somehow naturally meant for the home?

[Peguy]

Do you mean Betty Friedan?
Sorry, I always get those names mixed up. :redface:


The feminine mystique? I may be mistaken, but wasn't that book devoted entirely to the critique of the idea that women are somehow naturally meant for the home?

Yes but by 1980, she revised her views saying that women find the most fufillment within the nuturing of the home.

She was often at odds with more radical Feminists, stating once

"I’m at odds with the radical feminists because I’m not anti-marriage and anti-family. I always thought it was dangerous to go against the idea of the family. I don’t even like the phrase ‘women’s liberation’ because that idea of being set free from everything doesn’t seem right to me."

[Eileen]

I'm going with defining the objective as "ensuring a fairer, safer, more just, more equitable world for women," which might require us to define a few problems that get in the way of that.

-lack of equal pay for equal work
-glass ceilings
-mommy tracking
-the biological reality that women can have babies and men can't, therefore resulting in a bodily experience that primarily affects individual women
-stereotypes about female abilities in male-dominated occupations (even politics)

[Peguy]

I'm going with defining the objective as "ensuring a fairer, safer, more just, more equitable world for women," which might require us to define a few problems that get in the way of that.

-lack of equal pay for equal work
-glass ceilings
-mommy tracking
-the biological reality that women can have babies and men can't, therefore resulting in a bodily experience that primarily affects individual women
-stereotypes about female abilities in male-dominated occupations (even politics)

This seems to be under the assumption that women should be become more like men, and do things men can do. I guess a more "conservative" approach to feminism would stress more the unqiue qualities of women in particularly feminine areas of life, and that these attributes deserve the same amount of dignity and respect as masculine qualities. So men and women are equal, but different.

The main feminine area of life they tend to doiminate is the home. Nowadays to say this implies you're denegrading female roles. Quite the contrary, the home has always been the main foundation for culture in any authentic sense.

[Eileen]

Well, what about the economic reality that families need two incomes to be solvent these days?

[Orangey]

Sorry, I always get those names mixed up. :redface:



Yes but by 1980, she revised her views saying that women find the most fufillment within the nuturing of the home.

She was often at odds with more radical Feminists, stating once

"I’m at odds with the radical feminists because I’m not anti-marriage and anti-family. I always thought it was dangerous to go against the idea of the family. I don’t even like the phrase ‘women’s liberation’ because that idea of being set free from everything doesn’t seem right to me."

I think you need to put that in context. Radical feminism is an almost cult-like subgroup of the broad category of 'feminism' that is known for being well and away the most obnoxious one. These are the lesbian separatists, the ones who start all women colonies and write 'man-hating' literature. So yes, Betty Friedan had more of a classical liberal view of feminism than that, and this caused her to butt heads with that part of the movement when it was strong. However that is not to say that she believed domesticity to be part of the innate nature of women, which I don't think is true.

[Peguy]

Well, what about the economic reality that families need two incomes to be solvent these days?

Yeah and that's a direct result of women entering the workplace. Before, the common demand was for a family living wage. This was a demand shared by both traditionalists and many radicals. A classic example of the former was Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on workers' rights Rerum Novarum.

[Peguy]

So yes, Betty Friedan had more of a classical liberal view of feminism than that, and this caused her to butt heads with that part of the movement when it was strong. However that is not to say that she believed domesticity to be part of the innate nature of women, which I don't think is true.

She clearly stated in The Second Stage that a woman's sense of identity is found through "love, nurture, home."

[Eileen]

I can appreciate celebrating distinctly feminine activities and roles, but what about the women who don't want that/don't fit there? What do conservative feminists do with that?

I would say that I am a very, very moderate feminist when I say that I believe that women should be able to choose their lifestyles--professional, domestic, whatever--without judgment.

[Lateralus]

I would say that I am a very, very moderate feminist when I say that I believe that women should be able to choose their lifestyles--professional, domestic, whatever--without judgment.
'Without judgment'? I could agree to 'without impediment', but not to 'without judgment'.

[Eileen]

If all conservative feminism does is reinforce and celebrate traditional feminine roles, what is the social objective? Does it just elevate women from second-class to people who make real (domestic) contributions? Is there any way that conservative feminism would strive towards more fairness/safety/justice for women?

[Eileen]

'Without judgment'? I could agree to 'without impediment', but not to 'without judgment'.

Why do you have a problem with "without judgment"? Why should a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home-mom be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be in the army be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be a CEO of a major corporation be judged for that? I agree, "without impediment" is good. But why not without judgment too?

[Orangey]

She clearly stated in The Second Stage that a woman's sense of identity is found through "love, nurture, home."

Ah, I see. It's been a long time since I've read any of her crap, but if that's what she means then :thumbdown: to her. I always thought that what she meant (and mind you, I never did a close reading) was that real (to her) feminist goals such as equality of pay and so on would not be achieved by identity politics and man/family/heterosexual hating. I got the distinct impression in that book that she meant for men to pick up with the housework too so that women wouldn't be duly burdened with both work and domestic cares. But if that's not what she meant, it doesn't really matter because she is not the final word on feminism by any means.

[Hmm]

There is no such thing as Conservative Feminism.

[Peguy]

Why do you have a problem with "without judgment"? Why should a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home-mom be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be in the army be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be a CEO of a major corporation be judged for that? I agree, "without impediment" is good. But why not without judgment too?
Because the whole notion of "without judgement" basically means everybody else has to give up whatever principles they have have in order to accomodate her wants and desires.

Don't even get me started on women in the military.

[Lateralus]

Why do you have a problem with "without judgment"? Why should a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home-mom be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be in the army be judged for that? Or why should a woman who wants to be a CEO of a major corporation be judged for that? I agree, "without impediment" is good. But why not without judgment too?
We judge people all the time, everyone does it. We all have an idea of how things should be. It sounds like you want to neuter everyone's minds.

[Orangey]

I am getting the impression (from this thread, at least) that a 'conservative feminism' would advocate for a clear separation of 'male' and 'female' activities, but would also advocate for equal social valuation of these respective roles. If this is really what the goal is for a 'conservative feminism', then it is even more idealistic than regular old feminism, because we all know that there will never be equal valuation of those two spheres in a society that highly values public life and accomplishment (and by public I mean public vs private).

[Eileen]

We judge people all the time, everyone does it. We all have an idea of how things should be. It sounds like you want to neuter everyone's minds.

Well. I do, kind of, but I can accept that as not a feasible reality and delete "judgment" and put in "impediment."

That said, I think that some people's ideas are wrong and harmful. However, as they may believe the same about me, I suppose I have no choice but to stfu and just hope that they don't get in the fucking way.


Perhaps conservative feminism (or ... libertarian feminism) would not include a cultural attitude shift goal.

[Peguy]

If this is really what the goal is for a 'conservative feminism', then it is even more idealistic than regular old feminism, because we all know that there will never be equal valuation of those two spheres in a society that highly values public life and accomplishment (and by public I mean public vs private).

Yes that's one of the major fallacies of modernity - the blind glorification of public life to the neglect of private life in the home. One of the main reasons why late modernity has been a total cultural wasteland.

[Eileen]

I am getting the impression (from this thread, at least) that a 'conservative feminism' would advocate for a clear separation of 'male' and 'female' activities, but would also advocate for equal social valuation of these respective roles. If this is really what the goal is for a 'conservative feminism', then it is even more idealistic than regular old feminism, because we all know that there will never be equal valuation of those two spheres in a society that highly values public life and accomplishment (and by public I mean public vs private).


And is an idealistic philosophical position worth anything if it can't actually be translated into real change? I guess that's a question beyond this thread.

[Peguy]

And is an idealistic philosophical position worth anything if it can't actually be translated into real change?

That's a rather odd argument to make against conservative feminism. That actually applies more to radical feminism more, whose views are so out of touch with reality.

[Eileen]

Yes that's one of the major fallacies of modernity - the blind glorification of public life to the neglect of private life in the home. One of the main reasons why late modernity has been a total cultural wasteland.

Well, as you seem sympathetic to this conservative feminism, what say you to the contributions of women in literature/art, science, politics, business, and the like? There certainly have been many, and those women are often not sticking to their culturally prescribed roles (glorious and equal to male roles they may be).

[Eileen]

That's a rather odd argument to make against conservative feminism. That actually applies more to radical feminism more, whose views are so out of touch with reality.

I haven't made any arguments for or against radical feminism, but I'm not sure that a position that seems to require a social ideology shift (ironically enough, given your objections to my objections to judgments) is any more realistic than radical feminism.

[6sticks]

The Prohibition in the United States was started in large part by "conservative feminists" in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, mainly to stop abusive men from harming their family.

[Peguy]

Well, as you seem sympathetic to this conservative feminism, what say you to the contributions of women in literature/art, science, politics, business, and the like?

That's all nice and good, but doesn't change the fact the primary role of women is in motherhood and the home. And as I stated before, the home is the birthplace of culture - so essentially bringing up literature and art and all that is a wonderful way to back up my argument. Women had power in one of the most influential institutions ever - the home and family.

[Peguy]

I haven't made any arguments for or against radical feminism, but I'm not sure that a position that seems to require a social ideology shift (ironically enough, given your objections to my objections to judgments) is any more realistic than radical feminism.

Ever heard of the Reformation? The Enlightenment? And so on? Major shifts in world-views have happened and are a common theme throughout history, and has even been the study of numerous thinkers. Don't believe me, read up on the works of the Italian Neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci - who dwelled quite a bit on this topic in his Prison Notebooks.

He noted the importance of "Hegemony" in determining the basic worldview of any society; and how its basic precepts were often protrayed as unquestionable facts of nature.

[Eileen]

That's all nice and good, but doesn't change the fact the primary role of women is in motherhood and the home. And as I stated before, the home is the birthplace of culture - so essentially bringing up literature and art and all that is a wonderful way to back up my argument. Women had power in one of the most influential institutions ever - the home and family.

What about science, politics, and business? What I am asking is, when women have stepped out of their traditional roles in the family and home and made contributions outside of it (particularly in typically "male" fields), are those contributions (and... women?) somehow devalued because they made a choice to do something unconventional? When women are not really "wired" to be at the center of home and family, are they devalued? When men are, are they? Does conservative feminism lock people into roles?

[Eileen]

Ever heard of the Reformation? The Enlightenment? And so on? Major shifts in world-views have happened and are a common theme throughout history, and has even been the study of numerous thinkers. Don't believe me, read up on the works of the Italian Neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci - who dwelled quite a bit on this topic in his Prison Notebooks.

He noted the importance of "Hegemony" in determining the basic worldview of any society; and how its basic precepts were often protrayed as unquestionable facts of nature.

Well, in that case, why is radical feminism *more* unrealistic?

And it is indeed fascinating that someone who defends "conservative feminism" would bring up the term "hegemony." I've kind of covered hegemony (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/6766-racism-split-i-m-voting-republican-thread-5.html#post250800) here before.

[Peguy]

What about science, politics, and business?

In the grand scheme of things, those are secondary to cultural matters. In fact culture even provides the basic guiding principles for science, politics, and business. And the major figure who was often entrusted to instill such guiding principles into us as children was the mother.

Does conservative feminism lock people into roles?

Yes and no. With any principle, there's always exceptions to the rule.

[Orangey]

Ever heard of the Reformation? The Enlightenment? And so on? Major shifts in world-views have happened and are a common theme throughout history, and has even been the study of numerous thinkers. Don't believe me, read up on the works of the Italian Neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci - who dwelled quite a bit on this topic in his Prison Notebooks.

He noted the importance of "Hegemony" in determining the basic worldview of any society; and how its basic precepts were often protrayed as unquestionable facts of nature.

Um yes...and doesn't this present a problem for the idea of the unquestionable domestic role of women by nature? Hasn't hegemony been a starting point for many feminist social critiques?

[Peguy]

Well, in that case, why is radical feminism *more* unrealistic?
For one thing, conservative feminists can at least point to times when their basic principles actually were implemented. Radical feminists cannot, although they do make pathetic and hilarious attempts at it in regards to polemics about pre-historic matriarchies.


And it is indeed fascinating that someone who defends "conservative feminism" would bring up the term "hegemony." I've kind of covered hegemony (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/6766-racism-split-i-m-voting-republican-thread-5.html#post250800) here before.

The concept of Hegemony has been studied by "conservatives" of various kinds for at least 50 years now. So it's not out of character.

[Eileen]

So, the notion is that there is somehow a "classical" role that women fill, and that women should be satisfied--no, honored--to fill this classical role of motherhood, tender of the hearth, and so forth. Should we then be satisfied to stay out of the "male" realm, in which we may have interests and inquiries that we have the intellectual capacities (if not cultural permission) to pursue? Should we be satisfied to merely exert our influence via domestic life, not through voting?

[Peguy]

Um yes...and doesn't this present a problem for the idea of the unquestionable domestic role of women by nature?

Yes and no. For one thing, there is the basic distinction between ideology and philosophy. Hegemony largely applies to ideological considerations; while more philosophical considerations on womens' issues wouldn't.

As far as "conservative" is concerned this can play out both ways - when we determine what "conservative" actually means. We get a different answer is our paradigm is set by the likes of Burke, de Maistre, Oakeshott, Voeglin, Russell, etc than if we set it by Kristol, W. Bush, Palin, etc.

Hasn't hegemony been a starting point for many feminist social critiques?

Yes, which is why feminism falls under the ideology category not the philosophical one.

I pointed to Hegemony to show that considerations and changed in the basic worldviews of societies is not beyond realistic means.

[Peguy]

Should we be satisfied to merely exert our influence via domestic life, not through voting?
Yes, considering that domestic life is more influential in our effecting the world than voting.

[Eileen]

Yes and no. For one thing, there is the basic distinction between ideology and philosophy. Hegemony largely applies to ideological considerations; while more philosophical considerations on womens' issues wouldn't.


How is a belief system about how society should ideally be set up not an ideology?

[Eileen]

Yes, considering that domestic life is more influential in our effecting the world than voting.

How about YOU be a stay-at-home parent, since you are so into it (not that there's anything wrong with that, seriously; my mom was a s@hm.), and I will get a PhD in my chosen field and teach at a university?

Are your contributions to the culture devalued?
Are mine?

[Orangey]

Yes and no. For one thing, there is the basic distinction between ideology and philosophy. Hegemony largely applies to ideological considerations; while more philosophical considerations on womens' issues wouldn't.

As far as "conservative" is concerned this can play out both ways - when we determine what "conservative" actually means. We get a different answer is our paradigm is set by the likes of Burke, de Maistre, Oakeshott, Voeglin, Russell, etc than if we set it by Kristol, W. Bush, Palin, etc.



Yes, which is why feminism falls under the ideology category not the philosophical one.

I pointed to Hegemony to show that considerations and changed in the basic worldviews of societies is not beyond realistic means.

I am not understanding what the difference between 'philosophy' and ideology is, nor why the two are even being related in this instance.

[Ivy]

Yes, considering that domestic life is more influential in our effecting the world than voting.

Why not both? It's not as if you have to give up your domestic life to also have a professional/outwardly one. I'm still a mother, I still nurture my children, and I still tend the home although I work. So does my husband, all of the above (with the possible exception of tending the home, but I'm willing to overlook it since he's so badass at the rest of it and is happy to help when asked). The children spend some time in the care of others but that hasn't stopped us from teaching them our values.

[Eileen]

I am not understanding what the difference between 'philosophy' and ideology is, nor why the two are even being related in this instance.

No kidding. This whole thing has hegemony written all over it. In fact, I'd spell it all out, but I have to give the SAT at 7:30 AM and don't feel like being up all night pontificating on just how obviously hegemonic this is.

[Peguy]

How about YOU be a stay-at-home parent, since you are so into it (not that there's anything wrong with that, seriously; my mom was a s@hm.), and I will get a PhD in my chosen field and teach at a university?

A very nice sarcastic, but ultimately non-responsive statement.

[Eileen]

A very nice sarcastic, but ultimately non-responsive statement.

Ironic. Indeed, without my questions attached, it seems like mere sarcasm. But I actually made an inquiry which you have not, and--it seems since I've asked it at least twice now--will not answer.

[Peguy]

Why not both? It's not as if you have to give up your domestic life to also have a professional/outwardly one. I'm still a mother, I still nurture my children, and I still tend the home although I work. So does my husband, all of the above (with the possible exception of tending the home, but I'm willing to overlook it since he's so badass at the rest of it and is happy to help when asked). The children spend some time in the care of others but that hasn't stopped us from teaching them our values.

Ok but which takes priority: Family and home - or career?

[Eileen]

Ok but which takes priority: Family and home - or career?

I hope that Noah prioritizes his family and home over his career, too.

[Peguy]

I hope that Noah prioritizes his family and home over his career, too.

Of course. Men have an obligation to their families prior to "public life" - since the family is the basic building bloc of society. And the main person who keeps the family together is usually the mother. So I stress again, the mother(and by extension women) have a very powerful and influential role in society - they help keep it together.

I dont know what exactly is your problem with this notion.

[Ivy]

Ok but which takes priority: Family and home - or career?

They're both important. I need to makey the money to keep the family and home going, AND to be my best well-rounded self to nurture my children and be tender toward my husband. For both of us, family and home take precedence over a career which is in part a means to an end. But that's not all it is for either of us.

[Peguy]

Ironic. Indeed, without my questions attached, it seems like mere sarcasm. But I actually made an inquiry which you have not, and--it seems since I've asked it at least twice now--will not answer.

You've only asked ONCE to my recollection, and overall the question is just a rather rhetorical trick on your part to score points.

[Eileen]

I dont know what exactly is your problem with this notion.

I don't have a problem with it except that everybody doesn't fit neatly into this particular tableau. Also, it irritates me that you won't answer my questions.

[Eileen]

How about YOU be a stay-at-home parent, since you are so into it (not that there's anything wrong with that, seriously; my mom was a s@hm.), and I will get a PhD in my chosen field and teach at a university?

Are your contributions to the culture devalued?
Are mine?

What about science, politics, and business? What I am asking is, when women have stepped out of their traditional roles in the family and home and made contributions outside of it (particularly in typically "male" fields), are those contributions (and... women?) somehow devalued because they made a choice to do something unconventional? When women are not really "wired" to be at the center of home and family, are they devalued? When men are, are they? Does conservative feminism lock people into roles?

You've only asked ONCE to my recollection, and overall the question is just a rather rhetorical trick on your part to score points.


Twice. And I asked also whether women should be satisfied to stay out of the "man's realm" even if they have valuable inquiries and interests which they have the capacity to pursue.


And it's not a rhetorical trick--it's a question about this ideology (and that's what it is, just as much as mine is). In conservative feminism, can women's individual contributions outside of family and hearth be considered valuable, even pivotal? Can men's individual contributions within the home which may be considered more "feminine" according to this ideology be seen as equally or even more valuable than some women's?

This question matters, because what it asks is this: Does "conservative feminism" with its prescribed roles potentially limit the individual potentials of men and women? If it does, is this a positive limit?

[Peguy]

For both of us, family and home take precedence over a career which is in part a means to an end.

Good to hear that. Career is indeed a means to an end, and the end should always be towards the family. One of the basic points I've been trying to make here is that the priority of women from the "Conservative" feminist standpoint is that family takes priority over career.

Does that necessarily mean an absolute bann on women in the workplace? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the basic essence of womanhood is found within the home. Without that basic foundation, women are not going to get anywhere really and certainly not in poor substitutes like "public life". And furthermore, the public square itself(where "public life" happens) is also built on the foundation of the family(the basic building bloc of society).

So either way you look at it; women are tied to the family, and this is something women should be very proud of.

[Ivy]

I'm proud to be tied to MY family, because I love them. Not because I'm a woman and that's where I belong. I'm also a radical feminist though, so sucks to your ass-mar. ;)

[Eileen]

So either way you look at it; women are tied to the family, and this is something women should be very proud of.

If I were a mother and a wife, I would be very proud to be tied to my family--but I will be damned if I marry a man who is not equally tied to my family.

[Peguy]

Twice. And I asked also whether women should be satisfied to stay out of the "man's realm" even if they have valuable inquiries and interests which they have the capacity to pursue.


And it's not a rhetorical trick--it's a question about this ideology (and that's what it is, just as much as mine is). In conservative feminism, can women's individual contributions outside of family and hearth be considered valuable, even pivotal? Can men's individual contributions within the home which may be considered more "feminine" according to this ideology be seen as equally or even more valuable than some women's?

This question matters, because what it asks is this: Does "conservative feminism" with its prescribed roles potentially limit the individual potentials of men and women? If it does, is this a positive limit?

Well you can read my response to Ivy for one thing. Largely your questions amount to attacking strawmen.

[MacGuffin]

The Prohibition in the United States was started in large part by "conservative feminists" in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, mainly to stop abusive men from harming their family.

I want to invent time travel just to go back and stop them.

[Peguy]

If I were a mother and a wife, I would be very proud to be tied to my family--but I will be damned if I marry a man who is not equally tied to my family.
Did you not read my post where I clearly stated that men's obligations to the family are prior to that of public life?

[Peguy]

I'm also a radical feminist though, so sucks to your ass-mar. ;)

There's exceptions to every rule my dear. :tongue:

[Eileen]

Did you not read my post where I clearly stated that men's obligations to the family are prior to that of public life?

So how is this about feminism at all?

[Eileen]

I want to invent time travel just to go back and stop them.

Yeah, sometimes bitchez just need to listen. And also bring me my whiskey.

[kuranes]

But that doesn't change the fact that the basic essence of womanhood is found within the home.
So would conservative feminism mean then that they would be advocating for an even more tightly coupled connection to the home than what has been the status quo ? Or does it mainly exist simply as an opposition to Leftist Feminism ?

Should women be satisfied with just knowing that they've raised a good family ? One of the reasons that the questions about "equal pay" came up is due to how they are compensated for their efforts. One can say that it really shouldn't matter if they trust their husbands to always look out for them, now and in the future; but we've all heard horror stories about why they might plausibly consider doing exactly the opposite of that.

[Peguy]

So how is this about feminism at all?

You made the remark that Noah should prioritise his family over career, and I responded by saying that yes men have a priority to family over public life.

[Eileen]

You made the remark that Noah should prioritise his family over career, and I responded by saying that yes men have a priority to family over public life.

I believe that parents should work together to develop their children emotionally, morally, and intellectually. This means that the mother is not primary; she's part of a team.

It sounds to me like you're trying to make a case for the family being the most important focus in society. I am totally for making families (where people choose to have them) the most important focus in people's lives, but I am not for pigeonholing women into "primary influence" in a family, potentially devaluing the influence of a father (and perhaps devaluing a woman's influence outside of her home, since it isn't the "most important" thing she does).

[Peguy]

So would conservative feminism mean then that they would be advocating for an even more tightly coupled connection to the home than what has been the status quo ? Or does it mainly exist simply as an opposition to Leftist Feminism ?

It certainly is a major challenge to the basic precepts of Leftist Feminism. But as I stated in my first post, the basic notion of women finding their basic essence in the home and family is one that's existed across the spectrum. The Anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was staunchly pro-family for example.

Another way to put it I guess is a greater stress on a more family-centered sense of femininity as opposed to the more career-centered one. So even if career becomes part of the equation, it revolves around the basic core of family. This basic logic also applies to men too, but in different ways. A good father is as vital to a healthy family as a good mother.



Should women be satisfied with just knowing that they've raised a good family ?

Well that would be taking a mininmalist kind of approach. I personally think women(and even people in general) should aim towards a more maximalist approach to family and life.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, sometimes bitchez just need to listen. And also bring me my whiskey.

How about bourbon my dear?

[Eileen]

How about bourbon my dear?

Well, it is my most important duty, after all.

[Orangey]

So would conservative feminism mean then that they would be advocating for an even more tightly coupled connection to the home than what has been the status quo ? Or does it mainly exist simply as an opposition to Leftist Feminism ?

Should women be satisfied with just knowing that they've raised a good family ? One of the reasons that the questions about "equal pay" came up is due to how they are compensated for their efforts. One can say that it really shouldn't matter if they trust their husbands to always look out for them, now and in the future; but we've all heard horror stories about why they might plausibly consider doing exactly the opposite of that.

I think Peguy's concept is more radical (read: fundamental) than that. He seeks to reassert the prominence of the private sphere over the public sphere by tying both men and women down to primarily serve the private sphere. So if we accept that this is something that should be done, then of course something like radical feminism would seem absurd and dangerous.

However, where I think Peguy loses his whole "equality of men and women in their both being tied to the family and the home" thing is that while he offers vehement critique of feminism, he offers no such critique for the men who neglect their family duties. And men in this society are by far more likely (and in greater numbers) to abandon their ties to the home. So why is such criticism directed to a small number of radical feminist women and not to the large number of men doing the same thing (only it's not seen as radical, it's just normal)? It's as though it is more egregious (and therefore more detestable) for women to neglect their duties to the family than it is for men. And I have yet to hear an explanation for why this is.

[Peguy]

It sounds to me like you're trying to make a case for the family being the most important focus in society. I am totally for making families (where people choose to have them) the most important focus in people's lives, but I am not for pigeonholing women into "primary influence" in a family, potentially devaluing the influence of a father (and perhaps devaluing a woman's influence outside of her home, since it isn't the "most important" thing she does).

Im not for devaluing either mothers or fathers. But we mustn't forget that the roles of mothers and fathers are different - and often the mother's role is more direct.

[ajblaise]

There really aren't many conservative women's issues that are compatible with feminism "which is a discourse that involves various movements, theories, and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, advocate equality for women, and campaign for women's rights and interests."

Promoting traditional gender roles is one, but it is still kind of sketchy to bind that with feminism.

[Ivy]

I think that whole "the role of mothers and fathers are different" is WAY overstated. I have (had?) some hormonal links to my children that my husband does not, and of course I was the one with the boobies, but things that are necessarily exclusive to mothering are only a tiny slice of parenting.

[Peguy]

I think Peguy's concept is more radical (read: fundamental) than that. He seeks to reassert the prominence of the private sphere over the public sphere by tying both men and women down to primarily serve the private sphere. So if we accept that this is something that should be done, then of course something like radical feminism would seem absurd and dangerous.

Somewhat true. I'm always interested in addressing the "fundamental" concepts and issues effecting the world, and thus yes my concepts are far more radical in nature. As for the primacy of the private over the public. It'd be better to say that my argument is that the private sphere is the basic foundation for a healthy public sphere. Of course there's so much more to it than that.


However, where I think Peguy loses his whole "equality of men and women in their both being tied to the family and the home" thing is that while he offers vehement critique of feminism, he offers no such critique for the men who neglect their family duties. And men in this society are by far more likely (and in greater numbers) to abandon their ties to the home. So why is such criticism directed to a small number of radical feminist women and not to the large number of men doing the same thing (only it's not seen as radical, it's just normal)? It's as though it is more egregious (and therefore more detestable) for women to neglect their duties to the family than it is for men. And I have yet to hear an explanation for why this is.
Simple, the topic of this discussion has been about Feminism, specifically whether or not a "conservative" form of feminism can even exist - and if so what would its basic precepts be and how would it differ from what we traditionally see as Feminism. I'm arguing that such a concept can exist and have tried laying out some of its basic principles.

The issue of men who neglect family roles has not been major concern of my argument in this context. Certainly an entire discussion in of itself can be made about that. It's not that Im deliberately neglecting that topic; but as I stated to Bluewing - ONE TOPIC AT A TIME!

In many ways, the breakdown of the family in society on many levels has helped lead to the rising of a generation of men who don't give a rats' ass about caring for their families.

[Eileen]

Simple, the topic of this discussion has been about Feminism, specifically whether or not a "conservative" form of feminism can even exist - and if so what would its basic precepts be and how would it differ from what we traditionally see as Feminism. I'm arguing that such a concept can exist and have tried laying out some of its basic principles.

The issue of men who neglect family roles has not been major concern of my argument in this context. Certainly an entire discussion in of itself can be made about that. It's not that Im deliberately neglecting that topic; but as I stated to Bluewing - ONE TOPIC AT A TIME!


But it is really, really relevant to a conversation of feminism to discuss female roles that contrast with or are shared by men. To say "men and women have an equal role/responsibility in raising children" is rather different from "a woman's essence is in the home/family."

So far, all I see you do is elevate the family and stress how important a woman's traditional role is, that it's even more important than all the other roles that people might fill. But if men must also prioritize family life over everything else, I'm not sure that it's really a "conservative feminism" anymore; it's just a commentary on the importance of family.

In the even that women really do, in your view, have a "special" role with family and home, I maintain that your ideology is limiting to men (and therefore problematic), who could theoretically have the same kind of (or very similar) impact on their homes and families. See Ivy's comments.

[Peguy]

But it is really, really relevant to a conversation of feminism to discuss female roles that contrast with or are shared by men.

Isn't that the basic point of Feminist discourse anyways?



So far, all I see you do is elevate the family and stress how important a woman's traditional role is, that it's even more important than all the other roles that people might fill. But if men must also prioritize family life over everything else, I'm not sure that it's really a "conservative feminism" anymore; it's just a commentary on the importance of family.

Issues related to the family are important in any discourse on gender roles, male or female. The "Conservative feminist" angle is focusing on the female's role in the family, and how that relates to her overall role in society. Her role in the family is the foundation for her role in society.



In the even that women really do, in your view, have a "special" role with family and home, I maintain that your ideology is limiting to men (and therefore problematic), who could theoretically have the same kind of (or very similar) impact on their homes and families. See Ivy's comments.

I don't see how that is so as far as men are concerned. As for women, I've already stated my basic position here numerous times.

[Eileen]

Well, I guess tomorrow I'll just have to point out all the hegemony up in this piece.* But right now I have to right a defense of using awesome close reading strategies in youth group and go to bed.


*Or Orangey could take care of that. She'd probably rock that better than I'll probably end up doing, because I'm fairly satisfied for myself that I don't see much substance in conservative feminism.

[ajblaise]

"Conservative feminism" doesn't really focus on women's rights, which is central to feminism.

"Cultural conservatism" or traditionalism is a more apt term.

[ajblaise]

"Conservative feminism" doesn't really focus on women's rights, which is central to feminism.

"Cultural conservatism" or traditionalism is a more apt term.

[Peguy]

"Conservative feminism" doesn't really focus on women's rights, which is central to feminism.

"Cultural conservatism" or traditionalism is a more apt term.

Great, now you've opened another can of worms - which will amount to a discussion concerning the nature of "rights" in the abstract sense. *sigh*


I'm fairly satisfied for myself that I don't see much substance in conservative feminism.
Must be an INFJ thing, cause I have the exact same view of your arguments.

[Orangey]

Isn't that the basic point of Feminist discourse anyways?




Issues related to the family are important in any discourse on gender roles, male or female. The "Conservative feminist" angle is focusing on the female's role in the family, and how that relates to her overall role in society. Her role in the family is the foundation for her role in society.




I don't see how that is so as far as men are concerned. As for women, I've already stated my basic position here numerous times.

Yes, that women have a 'more direct' role in the family and blah blah blah. All you've laid out here is a restatement of traditional gender roles with a reversal of societal values. In reality, it wouldn't matter if the values were this way or that, since some women would always want to pursue careers and public lives for their intrinsic value, and not for the value that society placed on the endeavor. Such women would be excluded from your feminism.

To create a hierarchy for women based on commitment to the family is just as bad as the hierarchy created by some feminists that is based off of a woman's level of separation from the home (that Betty Friedan apparently so detested). The idea is to give equal value to women's pursuits both in and out of the home, not to sway it one way or the other.

[ajblaise]

Great, now you've opened another can of worms - which will amount to a discussion concerning the nature of "rights" in the abstract sense. *sigh*

Not really, the point is that "conservative feminists" don't exactly make women's rights an issue, no matter how you define "women's rights".

They simply want to go back in time.

[Peguy]

The idea is to give equal value to women's pursuits both in and out of the home, not to sway it one way or the other.

Nice theory, doesn't work in reality. The basic point I'm making here is that one serves as the basic foundation for the other. Without that foundation, the rest isn't really worth shit.

[Peguy]

They simply want to go back in time.

A common accusation made against conservatives, but not true really. As Edmund Burke himself stated, change can only occur within responsible limits based on the principle of continuity. So the issue is not turning back the clock, but rather getting back on track.

[Orangey]

Well, I guess tomorrow I'll just have to point out all the hegemony up in this piece.* But right now I have to right a defense of using awesome close reading strategies in youth group and go to bed.


*Or Orangey could take care of that. She'd probably rock that better than I'll probably end up doing, because I'm fairly satisfied for myself that I don't see much substance in conservative feminism.

Ha, well I could bust out some Althusser and critique Peguy's 'conservative feminism' from the standpoint that it is a constitutive ideological rhetoric that interpellates women as subjects for the purposes of maintaining a male-run capitalist hegemony. But I think that would be going too far :).

[ajblaise]

A common accusation made against conservative, but not true really. As Edmund Burke himself stated, change can only occur within responsible limits based on the principle of continuity.

Cultural conservatism is all about preserving culture and/or also about going back to previous culture.. or status quo ante.

This is conservatism 101 stuff.

[Peguy]

Ha, well I could bust out some Althusser and critique Peguy's 'conservative feminism' from the standpoint that it is a constitutive ideological rhetoric that interpellates women as subjects for the purposes of maintaining a male-run capitalist hegemony. But I think that would be going too far :).

That would be interesting to hear, considering that I'm a staunch critic of Capitalism and have been influenced by many strains of socialist and leftist thought. Heck, I could add some of the interesting remarks Slavoj Žižek has made on the matter. Of course there's also Christopher Dawson I could call upon my side, and many others - including the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

[Peguy]

Cultural conservatism is all about preserving culture and/or also about going back to previous culture.. or status quo ante.

Going back to a previous state of affairs would make one a reactionary, not a conservative per se.

[Orangey]

Nice theory, doesn't work in reality. The basic point I'm making here is that one serves as the basic foundation for the other. Without that foundation, the rest isn't really worth shit.

Let's not talk about reality here when you are the one who wants to overturn the values of 'modernity'.

And about your 'foundation' theory; I am to understand that since the family in your view creates the conditions of culture, and all public and intellectual affairs occur within culture, then the undermining of the family would make public and intellectual affairs cease to be. And since women participating in public life and not family life, or even partly in public life and family life, undermines the family foundation of society, then women cannot in your theory participate in the public life that they serve as the very foundation for. This sounds liberating indeed.

[ajblaise]

Going back to a previous state of affairs would make one a reactionary, not a conservative per se.

Those terms are very intertwined. A conservative can be pro status quo ante, but they don't necessarily have to be.

[Orangey]

That would be interesting to hear, considering that I'm a staunch critic of Capitalism and have been influenced by many strains of socialist and leftist thought. Heck, I could add some of the interesting remarks Slavoj Žižek has made on the matter. Of course there's also Christopher Dawson I could call upon my side, and many others - including the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Attempts to intimidate me with your proclaimed erudition? ;)

[Peguy]

Let's not talk about reality here when you are the one who wants to overturn the values of 'modernity'.

What can I say, I'm a Post-Modernist.


And about your 'foundation' theory; I am to understand that since the family in your view creates the conditions of culture, and all public and intellectual affairs occur within culture, then the undermining of the family would make public and intellectual affairs cease to be.

No, they don't necessarily cease to be per se; but their very nature is severely comprimised.


And since women participating in public life and not family life, or even partly in public life and family life, undermines the family foundation of society, then women cannot in your theory participate in the public life that they serve as the very foundation for. This sounds liberating indeed.

You're missing the point on so many levels. And unfortunately I'm simply too tired to get into this at any significant level. It's past 1:00 AM.


Attempts to intimidate me with your proclaimed erudition? ;)

No more than what you're doing my dear.

[Orangey]

What can I say, I'm a Post-Modernist.

Hehe, doesn't that by definition make you a bad conservative these days?

You're missing the point on so many levels. And unfortunately I'm simply too tired to get into this at any significant level. It's past 1:00 AM.

Gute Nacht.

No more than what you're doing my dear.

Don't you know that the use of patronizing endearments offends my feminist sensibilities :D!

[Peguy]

Hehe, doesn't that by definition make you a bad conservative these days?

No not really. There are many parallels between conservatism and postmodernism. There's quite a lot of literature about this, and I'll be more than willing to share. I've even commented on this elsewhere before as well(online and in my journals).

Even religiously speaking, there's the Postmodern theological perspective called Radical Orthodoxy which operates on similar principles. Postmodern themes were constant in the theology of Pope John Paul II even.



Gute Nacht.

Спокойной ночн :)

[Orangey]

No not really. There are many parallels between conservatism and postmodernism. There's quite a lot of literature about this, and I'll be more than willing to share. I've even commented on this elsewhere before as well(online and in my journals).

Even religiously speaking, there's the Postmodern theological perspective called Radical Orthodoxy which operates on similar principles. Postmodern themes were constant in the theology of Pope John Paul II even.

That's interesting. I guess I can sort of see where there would be parallels. But I was referring more to all of the conservative outcry against the humanities in the eighties and nineties when the likes of Derrida, etc... were in fashion.

[Bella]

I haven't read the whole thread...

Has she called HERSELF a femininst! If not, how can anyone be on her case about what kind of feminist she is.
If she has, my apologies...

[lowtech redneck]

Oh, for chrissakes...

I define "feminist" as someone who believes in the inherent equality (reflected through equal rights and legal protections) of men and women, and that there should be no legal impediments to either gender in pursuing jobs of their choice. "Conservative" and "libertarian" feminist do not believe that abortion, affirmative action and various other "left-wing" causes (individuals will make individual exceptions) are desirable or necessary to these ends, and are in fact injurious to the basic rights of other individuals. Disagreements on any of these particular issues do not disqualify someone from speaking in favor of "women's rights" any more than disagreeing with affirmative action policies disqualifies someone from speaking in favor of "civil rights"-hence, righteous indignation that Palin would "dare" speak about women's rights is silly and highly revealing.

[Eileen]

Oh, for chrissakes...

I define "feminist" as someone who believes in the inherent equality (reflected through equal rights and legal protections) of men and women, and that there should be no legal impediments to either gender in pursuing jobs of their choice. "Conservative" and "libertarian" feminist do not believe that abortion, affirmative action and various other "left-wing" causes (individuals will make individual exceptions) are desirable or necessary to these ends, and are in fact injurious to the basic rights of other individuals. Disagreements on any of these particular issues do not disqualify someone from speaking in favor of "women's rights" any more than disagreeing with affirmative action policies disqualifies someone from speaking in favor of "civil rights"-hence, righteous indignation that Palin would "dare" speak about women's rights is silly and highly revealing.

Oh, fine.

I concede that it is melodramatic--YEA, even revealing of bias--for me to have commented on Sarah Palin "daring" to mention women's rights. It is possible for right-wingers to be for equality of men and women.

But what's Sarah Palin going to do for women? If she's going to BRING UP women's rights, how is she going to protect them/enhance their expression? Why should anyone vote for McCain/Palin and include their stances on women's rights as a reason for that choice?

[Peguy]

I am not understanding what the difference between 'philosophy' and ideology is, nor why the two are even being related in this instance.

Granted, if one goes by the standard everyday definition of "ideology" as any body of beliefs concerning political affairs, it can be confusing.

If we go by the original definition of ideology by Destutt de Tracy: ideologies are bodies of ideas that aim towards the total transformation of society along the lines of an abstract theory that's divorced from reality; and often based upon a more reductionist apporach to issues.

By contrast; philosophy(in this case social and political) is based upon the critical study of the principles that underlie the right order, both personal and socially. Philosophy is not reductionist by nature, but rather acknowledges the multiplicity of reality. It's also more open-ended then ideology. Rather than aiming towards for the total transformation of the world, philosophy is more interested in providing the proper paradigms from which to address the world.

How does this apply to this discussion? Quite alot really. I'm arguing about the basic principles of a "conservative" approach to womens' issues - namely the primacy of family duties over more public ones. As I fully acknowledged, this need not mean women staying in the home entirely, but the whatever public affairs women do must revolve around that basic principle. How this works out in reality certainly differs according to circumstances. I'm not laying out a one-size fits all approach to the issue. So Im taking the more philosophical approach.

By contrast; it seems you, Eileen, and Ivy are taking more the ideological approach - or at the very least try to pigeonhole my views within an ideological perspective. Your sarcastic remark about how my views amount to "constitutive ideological rhetoric" for a male-dominated Capitalist society certainly shows this. If anything this is a classic example of the ideological approach. ;)

Even with sarcasm aside, the standard response to my arguments have been the insistence of an abstract notion of "equality" for both private and public spheres in the lives of women(and to even an extent men too). Yet as I noted, the concrete reality speaks differently on several levels.

This goes to very much the heart of "Conservatism" as I understand it. Edmund Burke was a staunch critic of the abstract social theories of the Enlightenment, and how they played out in numerous areas of the world - most famously in France. He argued in favor of tradition precisely because it is based upon the concrete experience of countless generations; and it is utterly foolish for any one person or generation even to claim to have more understanding of the world than that - especially with the complex nature of man and society.

This doesn't mean, as many like ajblaise argued, an absolute resistance to change. Ironically Burke himself stated, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." Rather tradition provides the foundation for change in proper directions and proportions.

Now as for the "equality" of public and private spheres. Well the orderings of any just(and perhaps we could add any geniunely democratic) society moves from the grassroots up. And the most basic unit that exists at the grassroots is the family. Democracy and justice cannot exist without that strong foundation, since man by nature is a social animal and needs to lives within concrete communities in order to fufill his public duties, not to mention find personal fufilment.

As Edmund Burke himself stated:

"We begin our public affections in families. No cold relation is the zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighborhoods and our provincial connections. These are our inns and resting places. Such division of our country as have been formed by habit and not by sudden jerk of authority are so many little images of the great country in which the heart is found something it could fill. The love to the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality...To love the little platoon we belong to in society is the first principle of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind." So by insisting upon a blind abstract "equality" between the family and "public life", you destroy the meaning and significance of both. If you cannot care for those closest to you, you certainly cannot care for those with less connection and attachment to you in the overall society. That's why the primacy of the family is important not only to women specifically, but society in general.

So that's by and large much of the basic points I've been trying to make within this discussion. I hope this helps clears things up a bit. And by goodness, there's still plenty more I have to address. *sigh* Oh well.

[pure_mercury]

There is no such thing as Conservative Feminism.

Well, that is obviously untrue.

[Peguy]

There is no such thing as Conservative Feminism.

Well we could make this more interesting and ask the question of whether we're really talking about Conservative feminism, but maybe instead be really talking about Conservative postfeminism. ;)

[nottaprettygal]

But what's Sarah Palin going to do for women? If she's going to BRING UP women's rights, how is she going to protect them/enhance their expression? Why should anyone vote for McCain/Palin and include their stances on women's rights as a reason for that choice?

Well, if one agrees that her conservative agenda is in the best interest of women, then that would be a reason to vote for her. If you think that it is the best interest of women to wait until marriage to have sex (enter abstinence only sex ed) and to avoid the emotional (and possibly spiritual) turmoil of abortion then she can definitely be considered a protector of women.

[Haight]

Wouldn't NOW support "what is in the best interest" of women?

[nottaprettygal]

Wouldn't NOW support "what is in the best interest" of women?

Puh. They would support what is in the best interest of liberal, soul-less women!

But the fact that NOW actually supported a candidate, which I don't think they have done in the past, shows just how much they dislike Palin's conservative feminism.

[Hmm]

Well we could make this more interesting and ask the question of whether we're really talking about Conservative feminism, but maybe instead be really talking about Conservative postfeminism. ;)

Sure, why not. :)

[Eileen]

Peguy's conservative feminism aside, because I think he and his ideology are another can of worms, it seems to me that "conservative feminists" are likely to believe that the early thrusts of the feminist movement did the job, and that some of its fruits are immoral or unethical (particularly abortion), and that there is really not so much to "fight for" anymore in terms of rights, whereas liberal feminism may always be on the defensive when the Sarah Palins of the world come along because we know we have rights that people want to take away from us (and we see some battles as not won). So conservative feminism often IS a "postfeminism" of sorts--a world in which women have what they need and want, so there's no need for concern regarding it.

I could be wrong, I guess. It was just a thought I had while trying to stay awake to give the SAT this morning.

[Peguy]

I would classify my perspective as more a social philosophy rather than an ideology. Not least of which because one need not be an ideological conservative to agree many of the basic precepts I've described.

I've mentioned this in my first post here that many early Feminists upheld similar positions, and they can be found across the political spectrum.

I know I've referenced to Edmund Burke a bit here, since this is supposed to be about Conservative perspectives; but even the philosophical mentor of the radical Liberal tradition Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in the virtue of womanhood laying within motherhood.

[Eileen]

I would classify my perspective as more a social philosophy rather than an ideology. Not least of which because one need not be an ideological conservative to agree many of the basic precepts I've described.

I've mentioned this in my first post here that many early Feminists upheld similar positions, and they can be found across the political spectrum.

I know I've referenced to Edmund Burke a bit here, since this is supposed to be about Conservative perspectives; but even the philosophical mentor of the radical Liberal tradition Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in the virtue of womanhood laying within motherhood.

You can call it what you want, but I'm calling it a spade.

[Peguy]

You can call it what you want, but I'm calling it a spade.

You can certainly call it whatever you want, and I'll keep correcting you each time. Stubborness in error is not a virtue.

[Eileen]

You can certainly call it whatever you want, and I'll keep correcting you each time. Stubborness in error is not a virtue.

Yeah, I'm rubber and you're glue. Here's an article from Wikipedia on ideology: Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) You have a "set of beliefs, aims, and ideas" which have possible political implications. You have a set of beliefs that was at least once "proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society," and your purpose here seems to be to "offer change in society through a normative thought process."

Here's another good bit from that article:


David W. Minar describes six different ways in which the word "ideology" has been used:

1. As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
2. As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
3. By the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction;
4. By the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization;
5. As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
6. As the locus of social interaction, possibly.

For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:

1. it must have power over cognitions;
2. it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
3. it must provide guidance towards action;
4. and, as stated above, must be logically coherent.



I think you can pretty much check each point off if you're honest with yourself.

[Peguy]

I can post links to Wikipedia as well:
Social philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_philosophy)
Political philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy)


Social philosophy is the philosophical study of questions about social behavior (typically, of humans). Social philosophy addresses a wide range of subjects, from individual meanings to legitimacy of laws, from the social contract to criteria for revolution, from the functions of everyday actions to the effects of science on culture, from changes in human demographics to the collective order of a wasp's nest.

Social philosophy attempts to understand the patterns and nuances, changes and tendencies of societies. It is a wide field with many subdisciplines.


Political philosophy is the study of questions about the city, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.

Political philosophy can also be understood by analysing it through the perspectives of metaphysics,epistemology and axiology thereby unearthing the ultimate reality side,the knowledge or methodical side and the value aspects of politics. Three central concerns of political philosophy have been the political economy by which property rights are defined and access to capital is regulated, the demands of justice in distribution and punishment, and the rules of truth and evidence that determine judgments in the law. Sometimes though, the law determines judgments, creating a Catch-22.

Of course there's more than Wikipedia I can rely upon. Seriously, you do recognize the difference between ideology and social-political philosophy right?

[bluemonday]

I confess, I can't be bothered to read most of this post because grey guy's arguments are too passe to take seriously.

But, I'm interested in what the women think of this:

"When she loved a man again, she would return to normal: a woman that is, whose sexuality would ebb and flow in response to his. A woman's sexuality is, so to speak, contained by a man, if he is a real man: she is, in a sense, put to sleep by him, she does not think about sex." - The Golden Notebook

True or false?

And why was Lessing considered a feminist?

[Eileen]

When a person would use a philosophy to exert power/dictate how someone lives her life, it becomes an ideology.

[Peguy]

I confess, I can't be bothered to read most of this post because grey guy's arguments are too passe to take seriously.


Truth is determined by the merits of its arguments, not by what time of day it is.

[Orangey]

Granted, if one goes by the standard everyday definition of "ideology" as any body of beliefs concerning political affairs, it can be confusing.

If we go by the original definition of ideology by Destutt de Tracy: ideologies are bodies of ideas that aim towards the total transformation of society along the lines of an abstract theory that's divorced from reality; and often based upon a more reductionist apporach to issues.

By contrast; philosophy(in this case social and political) is based upon the critical study of the principles that underlie the right order, both personal and socially. Philosophy is not reductionist by nature, but rather acknowledges the multiplicity of reality. It's also more open-ended then ideology. Rather than aiming towards for the total transformation of the world, philosophy is more interested in providing the proper paradigms from which to address the world.

How does this apply to this discussion? Quite alot really. I'm arguing about the basic principles of a "conservative" approach to womens' issues - namely the primacy of family duties over more public ones. As I fully acknowledged, this need not mean women staying in the home entirely, but the whatever public affairs women do must revolve around that basic principle. How this works out in reality certainly differs according to circumstances. I'm not laying out a one-size fits all approach to the issue. So Im taking the more philosophical approach.

By contrast; it seems you, Eileen, and Ivy are taking more the ideological approach - or at the very least try to pigeonhole my views within an ideological perspective. Your sarcastic remark about how my views amount to "constitutive ideological rhetoric" for a male-dominated Capitalist society certainly shows this. If anything this is a classic example of the ideological approach. ;)

Even with sarcasm aside, the standard response to my arguments have been the insistence of an abstract notion of "equality" for both private and public spheres in the lives of women(and to even an extent men too). Yet as I noted, the concrete reality speaks differently on several levels.

This goes to very much the heart of "Conservatism" as I understand it. Edmund Burke was a staunch critic of the abstract social theories of the Enlightenment, and how they played out in numerous areas of the world - most famously in France. He argued in favor of tradition precisely because it is based upon the concrete experience of countless generations; and it is utterly foolish for any one person or generation even to claim to have more understanding of the world than that - especially with the complex nature of man and society.

This doesn't mean, as many like ajblaise argued, an absolute resistance to change. Ironically Burke himself stated, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." Rather tradition provides the foundation for change in proper directions and proportions.

Now as for the "equality" of public and private spheres. Well the orderings of any just(and perhaps we could add any geniunely democratic) society moves from the grassroots up. And the most basic unit that exists at the grassroots is the family. Democracy and justice cannot exist without that strong foundation, since man by nature is a social animal and needs to lives within concrete communities in order to fufill his public duties, not to mention find personal fufilment.

As Edmund Burke himself stated:

"We begin our public affections in families. No cold relation is the zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighborhoods and our provincial connections. These are our inns and resting places. Such division of our country as have been formed by habit and not by sudden jerk of authority are so many little images of the great country in which the heart is found something it could fill. The love to the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality...To love the little platoon we belong to in society is the first principle of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind." So by insisting upon a blind abstract "equality" between the family and "public life", you destroy the meaning and significance of both. If you cannot care for those closest to you, you certainly cannot care for those with less connection and attachment to you in the overall society. That's why the primacy of the family is important not only to women specifically, but society in general.

So that's by and large much of the basic points I've been trying to make within this discussion. I hope this helps clears things up a bit. And by goodness, there's still plenty more I have to address. *sigh* Oh well.

Well then it is clear that the differences between our perspectives is based along more foundational lines. Namely, I take ideology to be the medium through which traditional power relations are maintained and crystallized. This means that I think that ideology preserves that which is NOT natural, but which it deceives us into thinking is natural. And this ideology is transmitted covertly and unconsciously through institutions such as the family to reproduce itself in subjects. (This is probably why arguments such as 'what's worked' throughout history hold no force from this perspective).

So this, I believe, is the source of our differences. For you can see clearly that an idea such as your 'conservative feminism' (or post-feminism) would seem, from my view, to be just a reinforcement of the existing ideology (instead of an independent 'philosophical' perspective). Of course, I have my viewpoint because that is what I take to be most true to my lived experience. That doesn't mean that it's absolutely true (though as a postmodernist I wouldn't think truth has that much force with you :D). But I also have no reason to believe that your perspective of what is 'right', according to your philosophy, is necessarily the right perspective. If it doesn't ring true to my lived experience, then I'm most likely to find it false.

[Peguy]

Yes Orangey, I would agree that the main difference between us is one of different paradigms - or "foundational" as you described it. Philosophy after all it the discourse between different perpsectives and paradigms. :)

[Orangey]

Yes Orangey, I would agree that the main difference between us is one of different paradigms - or "foundational" as you described it. Philosophy after all it the discourse between different perpsective and paradigms. :)

Or the continuous search for truth and knowledge.

[Peguy]

Or the continuous search for truth and knowledge.

Yes of course that too, but they're not mutually exclusive. In order to search for truth and knowledge, you often have to engage in discourse with people of differing perspectives in order to help achieve that end.

[Orangey]

Yes of course that too, but they're not mutually exclusive. In order to search for truth and knowledge, you often have to have discourse with people of differing perspectives in order to help achieve that end.

Yeah, I was just making a jibe at the whole postmodern "discourse is everything" idea. Not that that's what you believe, but I felt like being a smartass :).

[Peguy]

Yeah, I was just making a jibe at the whole postmodern "discourse is everything" idea. Not that that's what you believe, but I felt like being a smartass :).

LOl touche ;)

Although my sense of Postmodernism is different than the standard version familiar to most people; which in my view actually amounts to more Hypermodernism than true Postmodernism. For one thing, I'm a devout Catholic - so of course I believe in the concept of truth.

A parallel exists division exists in regards to the atheistic/secularist Existentialism of Sartre and the theistic Existentialism of Kierkegaard, Buber, Marcel, Tillich, etc.

This should give you a good introduction:
Postmodern Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity)

[bluemonday]

Truth is determined by the merits of its arguments, not by what time of day it is.
I think it might be more productive to argue about what time of day it is, then to engage in this particular debate.

[Orangey]

I think it might be more productive to argue about what time of day it is, then to engage in this particular debate.

Then don't?