Feminist interpretation

>feminist interpretation

These niggas for real? How the fuck can you think something written by a 19th century German philosopher was in any way feminist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S9X_gxD9YYg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

That's not what feminist literary theory is.

That's not how interpretation works.

>How the fuck can you think something written by a 19th century German philosopher was in any way feminist?
what did you think Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were responding to with their rants on feminism?
also this

>a feminist or Marxist reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, [Bloom] says, but likely nothing about Hamlet itself.

...

I worded that badly, as in how can you think what they thought of had any relation to feminism? I think it's supposed to be "a lens with which you see the world" or something but when you all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

>what they thought of had any relation to feminism?
>what they thought of had any relation
>what they thought

One basic principle that I think you're missing is that your feminist critic isn't interested in what the author of the text thought. She's interested in the text and the role it may play in certain discourses and how it contributes to notions of oppression, for example. It's an idea that's becoming increasingly passé, but many critics will still insist that the author's intention has no bearing upon interpretation.

So, I will politely reiterate what user has stated before me:

>That's not how interpretation works.

>interested in the text and the role it may play in certain discourses and how it contributes to notions of oppression

I thought that was the Marxists' job? Wait..

And feminist theory is a derivation of Marxist literary criticism. Spot on.

What's the difference?

'Feminist' literary theory just means looking at how the gender roles in the novel affect its structure, not necessarily saying things about 'free the nipple'. For example, comparing the female-dominated world of Crime and Punishment with the male-dominated world of The Brothers Karamazov

The nature and identity of the oppressor and the oppressed, to begin with. The marxist sees history as the product of class oppression and the feminist as the product of gender oppression. Consequently, they each approach the text differently and are attentive to different details. There are plenty of local differences, but the basic premises that undergird them are similar.

To which Jordan H. Christ can only throw his hands up in dismay and cry out:
>Damned neo-marxists!

That's certainly part of it, but there is an ideology beneath that motivates such readings.

To which Jesus H. Zizek can only throw his hands up in dismay and cry out:
>It's pure ideology, my god.

youtube.com/watch?v=S9X_gxD9YYg

Feminist literary theory is actually quite interesting. I am a very traditional type of person but feminist theory always opens up works to different interpretations than I would usually go to. Madwoman in the Attic is a great example. I don't always agree but it still helps me think in a different way.

nice

>he doesn't realize that criticism is a creative act

absolutely plebian

>feminist literary theory is actually quite interesting

Yeah it's quite amazing

>hurr durr every book is about muh amazing powerful vagoo goo that every man dreams about 24/7 and oh god i'm such a sexy empowered womyn whom kant wanted so bad but he CAN'T HAVE ME TRALLALALALALA I'M SO SEXY OH GOD SEXXXX

That's literally filtering all information contrary to the ideology out and proclaiming it was right all along. How can you find anything of worth here? Oh wait, everything is worthless it's all power.

You don't really know what you're talking about, right? I mean, you've never actually engaged with feminist criticism, have you? You've been triggered by youtube videos and angsty virgins in class, themselves knowing nothing about feminist literary criticism. Stop embarrassing yourself, kid. The grownups are trying to talk to each other.

>this is what passes for intelligent discussion on Veeky Forums these days

Sad!

What's really sad is that I saw this reply coming before I even hit post

>I don't like your characterization, therefore you've never read feminist criticism.

Okie dokie, pal.

That is the point at which literary criticism of almost any sort becomes something of a mug's game. Really great criticism rises above this and is productive and creative and increases our knowledge of the text and its reception. Most is just a shallow reinscribing of the assumptions that were brought to the text. But, as in almost any discipline, most of what's produced by its practitioners will be average and only the cream will float.

The fact that there's bad criticism doesn't negate the purpose or utility of criticism, though.

Your "characterization" bore no relation to feminist criticism, though.

You're not fooling anyone lol

>What's really sad is that I saw this reply coming before I even hit post
And yet hit post anyway. That is sad.

>Saw that one coming too

Not as sad as you.
I'd rather be the forseer than the forseen.
This is my world, you're just living in it man.

>This is my world, you're just living in it man.
Holy shit. You're right.

>this is the cancer that Veeky Forums allows on the board

Sad!

You sound like someone who has never been near a women. At least you're well versed in feminist theory, right?

Now, regardless of how interesting or useful it is is aside from the point. The entire field is completely useless and a waste of money/academic time.

I'm not just talking about criticism by itself. I mean how can these people proudly state they see everything as oppression? There is clearly more to it than that so why the tunnel vision?

>these people proudly state they see everything as oppression
Who does this? You must be kidding.

In my experience, some are zealously committed to the ideology (and are as deluded as every other ideological zealot) and the rest do it because it's a living. If you can publish, teach, and get tenure, then you'll keep doing what works. And fem theory is part of what works.

It's such an odd thing, that in a discipline that trumpets the complexity of the texts being studied and the difficulty of unwinding their mysteries, so many people can be so reductive and narrow in their approach to almost any text.

>why the tunnel vision
Everything they do is to reinforce their beliefs. Why do you think they interpret things strictly through the lens of their specific belief and not some other way?
They seek only to confirm their biases.

Commitment to a particular school of lit crit isn't a bad thing, and the methods can become something of a dry habit. Something interesting can happen, though, when critics of different schools engage each other. In the agonistic relationship between the formalists and the feminists, something creative or productive can happen.

>They seek only to confirm their biases.
So long as it gets them book deals and tenure.

Don't play stupid.

>In my experience, some are zealously committed to the ideology (and are as deluded as every other ideological zealot) and the rest do it because it's a living. If you can publish, teach, and get tenure, then you'll keep doing what works. And fem theory is part of what works.

This makes it seem like the entire thing is one big racket. Half the people in it are retarded and the other half are dishonest.

There are just so many contradictions it's hard to even find a place to start picking it apart. Don't they pride themselves in being rational and critical? Why do they straight up declare they see the world a certain way and that's that?

>Commitment to a particular school of lit crit isn't a bad thing, and the methods can become something of a dry habit.
Certainly not, but the trouble is that these things do indeed become habit and bias.
>Something interesting can happen, though, when critics of different schools engage each other. [...]
I absolutely agree with you, but that's part of the trouble with feminist modes of thought. There is little room for discourse, unless one decides to separate oneself from the general ideology and do as you said, engage in discourse with others of differing ideas. Trouble being that this is not encouraged or taught in feminism or similarly "hardline" ideologies.
But I do agree with y9ou, there could be valuable discourse, but that would necessitate some abandonment of idealism.
This is also a problem. The acceptance of ideas due to popularity. I would wager a strong majority of the so called "feminists" out there are only conforming for the publicity and acclaim it brings. Sad, but there you are.
>There are just so many contradictions it's hard to even find a place to start picking it apart. Don't they pride themselves in being rational and critical? Why do they straight up declare they see the world a certain way and that's that?
A great many people are this way, not just feminists, but they are so in particular. Its a core of the ideology.
They like to pretend they believe they are rational and critical, but in reality they only believe they are right. It has little to do with actual process or rationale or criticism. This is common elsewhere. They stumble into a belief that suited their worldview at the time and have only continued to reinforce themselves in it, never actually challenging it. I would say this is more a human problem than anything else.
Which is why they are content to simply wallow in a stationary state of mind. They are confident in their individuality to some degree, and any challenge to the idea to which they conform is a challenge to that individuality and their power as intelligent individuals.
Its ultimately just human folly combined with a particularly volatile and errant system of belief.

Can't believe the state of Veeky Forums now. Not a single post in this thread has anything to do with feminist criticism and it's clear that no one posting in this thread has ever read any feminist criticism.

This thread is an incredibly clear example that no one on Veeky Forums actually reads.

top kek

The death of the author was a mistake.

You know that there were people who didn't think women were subhuman all throughout history, right?

How did this become so dominant? Anyone can do this. . . . You just have to read a brochure with a few Feminist theory guidelines and you are good to go.

Subhuman = Differentiation of male and female.

>tampons, pads, and ironclads

>You just don't understand, so please stop talking, okay, sweetie? Feminism is so much more!

>it's lawful to beat your wife if she talks back to you
>not categorizing females as "below" men

>antebellum calcutta

>but when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Your little alt-right youtubers just want your views. KYS.

I wouldn't bother trying to get OP to see the errors of his way.

>The entire field is completely useless and a waste of money/academic time.
EDGY

the great thing about these threads is that everyone gives examples of what they mean

Feminism is fucking shit on the whole.
Feminists are generally delusional, and when they are not, they deny parts of current feminist ideology.
You've made the same post several times ITT. Yet when others respond, you have no comment. Fuck off faggot.

Pretty sure they'd have to read stuff to do that.

Your problem is that you're leaping from user's single-post summary of feminism and Marxism to your own even more exaggerated 'but that's literally...' version of user's post. At no point are you actually reading any of the books you're complaining about to learn about them- you're just confirming your own biases.

I see nothing controversial about this statement. After all, the whole point of women's studies was to provide female "scholars" with safe jobs and salaries. It's academic welfare for dunces.

Why does Veeky Forums hate women so much?

All the Anons here who hate women have never had sex.

Wonder what triggered this reaction. Did user hear two people use the same cliche, and link them in their mind? Is the hammer nail cliche forbidden now, much like nobody is allowed to use the useful word 'actually'?

>waaah Veeky Forums isn't taking vagina crit seriously

You fundamentally don't understand the nature of Veeky Forums. It's positively absurd for you to waltz in here whining about how the thread isn't serious enough or whatever the fuck it is you wanted.

And of course your parting shot is that we don't read. Yeah we get it. We don't read. No one on Veeky Forums lifts. No one on /v/ plays. Everyone on Veeky Forums is a slob. Only you know anything.

>triggered

>dickhead

>double triggered

>Oh wait, everything is worthless it's all power.

I wish Jordan Peterson, a man who says he was tremendously influenced by Nietzsche, would actually take Nietzsche's conclusions seriously.

Everyone knows that values are only values if they are backed up by power.

You can have 50000000 different interpretations of the same value structure, and at some point power has to insert itself and say "This is the canonical interpretation, not all these others".

"Power" is too nebulous. I really like Tolstoy's historical dialectic in W&P, basically that values are only justified through historical events. The idea is that we are always just becoming, and we're determined by events that we are contributing to.

>"Power" is too nebulous

Well, I could've used the word authority instead, which is synonymous.

Either way, Nietzsche's ideas have a perspectival and a postmodern conclusion; namely that there are infinite interpretations and that there is a chain of signification in language that is also infinite.

So how do you decide where to stop the infinite chain of interpretation? Authority does.

There's virtually a limitless amount of ways to grade a test if you're a teacher, but the most important thing is that the teacher is the one with authority to decide who gets a passing grade.

Authority is not entirely arbitrary. The teacher could only grade a geometry exam within a certain scope. Authority is also at the will of those who are under it. You are free to agree or disagree with authority. Only academics feel neurotic about it on a focauldian level.

>The teacher could only grade a geometry exam within a certain scope

That's true. And Nietzsche would agree that science is slightly different.

But Nietzsche would argue that nothing of actual human importance hinges on scientific objectivity.

Most people agree that the world is an oblate spheroid, but most of the world do not agree how high taxes should be.

E.g every conflict, trivial or large, that revolves around humans, needs power and authority to be resolved.

I think that is a kind of teleology, Nietzsche observes that authority is the arbitrator and so he thinks that arbitration must be a function of authority. But that is a problem essentialism generally.

I think the test example is illuminating as to why academia is so strange about their obsession with "violence", and also why postmodernism has found less purchase in the sciences (but it infiltrates it more so everyday). And you are right about authority being at the will of those under it as numerous student revolts will attest. Really the authority of academia has started to crumble, and the student trumps the teacher almost always.

The problem is that Nietzsche, would he be alive, would probably argue that Peterson is just inserting authority into the interpretative structure, and choosing a specific canonical metanarrative at the expense of all the other possible interpretations.

Which he is. The question arises why one should choose to agree with Peterson's specific pragmatist mytho-poetic interpretation of the World.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen
>Bachofen is most often connected with his theories surrounding prehistoric matriarchy, or Das Mutterrecht, the title of his seminal 1861 book Mother Right: an investigation of the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World. Bachofen assembled documentation demonstrating that motherhood is the source of human society, religion, morality, and decorum. He postulated an archaic "mother-right" within the context of a primeval Matriarchal religion or Urreligion.

Supposedly native kekistani

thats not how critical theory works. if you want to read a text as if it were for the time it was written, you have to look at it with old historicism.

Fucking hell, the number of feminazis on this board astound me. Also, tits or gtfo.

Goddam' straight

This thread should serve as exhibit A as to why.

They're right though. The OP clearly did not understand what feminist literary theory is.

>You disagree with me so you must be a virgin who hates women because of that. :) Teehee, bye bye!

>male dominated: brotherhood
>female dominated: suffering
WTF I'm a misogynist now!

I'm dragging this post up from the shit in case this user sees it. Thank for this post, mate. I didn't see this response last night. I'm glad there can be some thoughtful exchange here.

you suck at implications

good post

He probably believes that it's the best working interpretation.

Tbf, we nothing historically about the lives of most women in antiquity besides what their husbands wrote on their grave stones so any knew data we can find would be helpful
The rest is just postmodernist drivel.

kek

Women != annoying feminist dykes

To be honest I don't even mind feminist crit, but it's not something I want to read a lot of.

the problem is when you consciously approach a work from an ideological perspective your perception of that work will be fundamentally distorted. That's why it's hard to take feminist crit seriously. Not because it's mostly populated by women but because the narratives it tells are artificial.

I mean let's be real here. It IS hard to take women seriously.

Depends.
I'm often impressed with women's aesthetic judgements and emotional intelligence. I mean just women I know in real life.

dem tootsies tho

The distorsion is inevitable, as interpretation is an ideological act directing attention to fragments of the text. What's artificial is the pretension that the text can be wholly taken in by the interpreter and render a full critique.

Interpretation is not necessarily an ideological act it can and should be a personal act.

How is a personal act not ideological?

Know nothing*
New* not knew
Christ.

Do you even know what ideology is?
>inb4 "everything is ideology" meme

Yes, I do.

Your previous question implies that you don't.

Care to answer the question I asked, then?

Obviously not since it's apparent that we don't share the same idea of what ideological means
It's only meaningful to discuss if we both think there is a distinction between the two. Since you evidently think personal worlds are ideological and are also unwilling to clarify your idea of ideological then there isn't really anything to discuss.

sure