this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
66 points (97.1% liked)
askchapo
22959 readers
232 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was not trying to denigrate feminism. The West's mainstream feminism is extremely syncretic now that it's not even liberal / bourgeoisie feminism anymore. There's no real word for it. Naomi Wolf is a perfect example. In ideology the Naomi Wolf who wrote The Beauty Myth is not the Naomi Wolf who polices women's vocal fry. Both Naomi Wolfs are synthesized within the Western mainstream feminism in 2025. It's only practical effect on the world is reflected in things like Space Katy Perry, which are re-emergent forms of mid-century advertisement patriarchy.
We have gone from Mad Men controlling economic machinery to convince women they need to buy things to enforce a fake beauty standard. To the 90's and 2000's where women took on the roles of men in that system. To a systemic patriarchy (e.g. a social structure where patriarchy can exist without patriarchal attitudes) that sells things to women in a Schrodinger's feminism. Every idea is held in a superposition until society observes it, and society does not categorize it in a logical or consistent way. Society simply collapse the wave function and whether the idea ends up as "pro-women" or "anti-woman" is not deterministic based on the ideas of any specific strain of feminism or even the basic idea of equality between genders.
To explain it in complicated philosophy instead of complicated physics, mainstream feminism is a signifier without the signified or as Lacan put it a pure signifier. I hesitate to say this, but in layman's terms a pure signifier is "a label that doesn't mean anything". I hesitate to use that phrase because it is used in causal conversation that is meant to be simplistic and dismissive. Mainstream feminism isn't inherently meaningless, it's part of a dialectical process that has hollowed it of meaning. It's real meaning should be the history of how it became meaningless. Mainstream feminism is great example of the real social processes that govern how our world works.
To offer an analogy, the last name Carpenter has the same problem as mainstream feminism. Last names were given to people based on certain social meanings. There would be various systems like a literal lineage name like Johnson e.g. Son of John. Occupational names are also a thing like Smith, Miller, Carpenter would literally denote the person's trade. John Smith would be the guy in your town that makes nails, Tim Miller would be the guy in your town that makes flour, etc. You wouldn't even think to ask Sabrina Carpenter to make you kitchen cabinets because Carpenter has through dialectic social processes become just a label. So in effect "Sabrina Carpenter" sings, "John Carpenter" makes horror movies, and "mainstream feminism" sells things -- all of these labels have been imbued and dispossessed of significance from the same dialectic process of meaning making.
this runs through my head every time someone claims they are politically a "progressive" unless they are a time traveler from the early 1900s
Oh I disagree with this one anyone who says "I'm a progressive" means "I'm a good person". That one has been dispossessed of its original meaning and re-imbued with a very clear new one.
It's epithet context used by conservatives means "we don't think you're fascist enough".
liberal elmo
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
great post (I think, maybe someone is going to come problematize those philosophical arguments in 4 hours and make me feel like a caveman)
Wdym? In the history of the internet nobody has ever had posting wars about fuzzy concepts. Nobody has ever had posting wars about the concept of fuzzy concepts.