The Grumpy Feminist

"Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.” -bell hooks

This is what I looked like on the inside during REL 601 today.

We were discussing feminist and gender critiques of religion (Rita Gross and Marsha Hewitt) as well as feminist reconstructions of religion.

Jen and I, being the ones to present for the day, were on top of our game and ready to roll. This was our thing, what we're interested in..the sort of thing that really fascinates me.

But then it happened...the same way it always happens. We're literally two sections into Jen's outline on the Rita Gross reading and all of a sudden the men are on the defensive.

One of them starts spouting off about how this feminist propaganda is completely anti-male; another starts some sort of strange rant about how even if we have women's studies, there aren't that many significant women to study and therefore spending 50% of your time on women would take vital time away from the vast array of significant men to study. Oh and then we wasted ten minutes listening to the discussion of how women aren't considered "other", and I quote..."I mean, they may be lesser humans but they're still humans".

I spent most of my time biting my pen, because to me feminism and religious studies are about dialogue, about listening to the others around you and seeking understanding...but how do you seek understanding when those around your are on the defensive?

I'll admit it- I threw away any sort of skillful means I may have been endowed with and just straight up went on the attack. Which, if you know me, means I said one mean thing very politely in a way that no one understood I was being mean. Ha!

If I understand correctly, the main complaint of the "propaganda" guy was that women's studies is just like affirmative action. He offered the metaphor of a pendulum, saying that perhaps it has swung in the direction of androcentrism (male centered) focus, but insisting on women's studies simply pushes it way too far in the other direction.

I couldn't chew on my pen any longer. I calmly offered this-

The problem with the pendulum in our society is that we see it as "normal" and "centered" when in all actuality it is stuck quite far on the androcenterist side. An emphasis on women's studies and gender does not push the pendulum too far the other direction, but rather seeks to bring it back to center. It will take time of course, but a push in the other direction is necessary to bring us back to center.

It is so frustrating to me when men jump to the defensive when it comes to discussing feminism. Feminism is not man-hating...it is all encompassing. Those two particular men in my class made it quite clear the inherent patriarchal fear of losing their position in society.

Ahh well. Boys will be boys eh? I'm not discouraged...just grumpy.

Side-Tracking 101

I learned how to do it in high school.

I perfected it during undergrad.

Now, I'm unintentionally doing it in my graduate classes.

Don't ask me how we did it, but somehow in REL 601: "Approaches to the Study of Religion" tonight I found an opportunity to drop the fact that a friend of mine from high school is now an adult film star and we wound up explaining to our prof. about "Furries". Yeah...you know, "Furries".

Durkheim would have been proud?

Seriously though, this conversation started because we were discussing Emile Durkheim's definition of religion-

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e. things set apart & forbidden-- beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

For Durkheim, religion is an expression of social cohesion. Its rituals serve as a reaffirmation of the society for its members. But, and this was our question for Durkheim, where do you draw the line?

The comment I made which got us side-tracked had to do with the internet and the cyber-communities we create. How do sites like Facebook, Myspace and even Second Life (where your avatar can attend mass and other religious services) affect our society and thereby our religious practices?

Facebook and blogs create arbitrary communities. We can choose to join, to participate and then just leave with no consequences. We create relationships with people we hardly know, keep up relationships with barely any effort and extend our social network further than someone like Durkheim in the early days of sociology would have imagined possible. It's so fascinating!

Long story of how we got to Furries short- If a group fits the requirements for a religion, can it be called a religion? Fetish groups and other online communities seem to fit Durkheim's 4 major functions of religion-

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being

But perhaps we're really just replacing the real deal with easier, less demanding substitutes.

So here are my questions for you, fearless readers-
What's your new religion?
And how do you feel about online communities? Are they a positive experience? Or are they even a real society?

Aaaaand....Go!!