I would not say: the same Western feminism in the last century went through a crisis of ideas of equality feminism-in favor of the concept of difference feminism, which presupposes taking into account the physiological characteristics of people.
Difference feminism– represents a wide range of feminisms that emphasize the differences between men and women. This approach emerged in the 1980s as a result of attempts to reevaluate devalued so-called traditional feminine qualities such as subjectivity, caring, sensuality, empathy, etc. Feminism is often criticized for being essentialistic and reinforcing conventional gender stereotypes. In addition, this direction does not take into account that there are also many differences between women themselves: class, cultural, religious, etc.
Another cognitive reflection is that difference feminism is often identified with so-called cultural feminism. And one of his messages, apparently, is to explore the socio-cultural differences between the sexes, reformat the categories of femininity and femininity, removing the label of secondary nature from them.:
In my opinion, the distinctive feature is that, recognizing the culturally constructed differences between men and women, cultural feminism puts a bold plus sign on feminine qualities, not a minus sign, and suggests that we build our own female culture based on non-masculine values. You can start from this.
Earlier, in 2008, when libfem ruled the ball, I noticed such a strange trend when viewing feminist groups: there matriarchy appeared as a kind of bad word — the antonym and twin of patriarchy, that is, as the idea of the superiority of women over men. And the emphasis was placed on the ideas of gender equality, and as for the cultural and spiritual needs of women, they were ignored and continue to be ignored. This is evident from the fact that even if they are fighting for equality, it is still conceived in the conditions of the existing civilization (i.e., in other words, in other countries). cultural patriarchy), from which it is simply necessary to eliminate all discrimination. That is, it turns out that a woman should grow up to the level of a man, and this is already yesterday's century in feminism. Sometimes I see this desire for equal rights as a fear of women, because they can create something of their own, an alternative to the existing civilization.
<…>
We can safely call our civilization phallocentric, because its values are phallocentric. Some people unconsciously accept them as an a priori ideal that women should reach out to — thus, a woman is presented as a neutered man. But it has long been clear that some women, having gained access to power and resources, have not developed solidarity with their gender at all and, moreover, are just as likely to oppress women as men with power. A female boss is no better than a man. It is part of the system and will, according to the rules of this system, first of all dismiss women. Many of the masculine values presented as the most prestigious are far from universal, but the most patriarchal.
I see that women's and feminist values (for example, the idea of mutual aid) are belittled even in the feminist community, because they are constructed by patriarchy. Should I always see it that way? After all, it is primarily masculine values that are distorted and disfigured by patriarchy. Power corrupts. Women have their own wounds, but those values that are feminine: mutual aid, lack of hierarchy in relationships, horizontal structures of public relations, pacifism, cooperation, nonviolent conflict resolution-this is not an aberration, it is normal, although culturally constructed. It is on this basis that it would be good to build a new society. With the development of society, people's feminine qualities are becoming stronger, and gradually the level of violence decreases. The development of civilization follows the vector of gradual reduction of violence.
The point really is that accepting differences should not serve as grounds for discrimination, biologization, or questionable essentialism.
There are, of course, biological differences between men and women. But this does not mean that men and women should have different rights and freedoms — just as people of different skin colors should have the same rights. The presence or absence of any organs or physical abilities does not make one of the sexes better, does not automatically give their owners more privileges, and does not mean, for example, that they should make decisions in the family or receive more money with the same professional qualifications. In addition, the biological gender and its social perception, that isgender,�— different things that do not always coincide.
The attempt to prove the superiority of men over women through biology is based on the idea that power is associated with physical strength. However, the difference in height, weight, and strength between men themselves is greater than that between the average man and woman. So the point here is still not in what roles nature supposedly awarded us, but in the habit of identifying with men some traits (courage, authority, determination), and with women — others (patience, weakness, caring).
In my opinion, the desire to “turn a blind eye” to differences just leads to more discrimination.
black leather, white leather, yellow leather , whatever.
There's nothing weird or scary about it. That's when people start substituting concepts and demanding that simple defining concepts be replaced with something else – this once again emphasizes that THEY are NOT LIKE THAT!
This is precisely the confusion of concepts. Non-discrimination is not when blacks and whites are grouped as “indeterminate colors” and the names “black” and “white”are banned. Non-discrimination is when blacks are called black, whites are called white, but the color of the skin is not the basis for any legal differences.
Race, gender, height, weight, etc. are all biological differences. And the social level at which legal relations appear is higher than the biological level. And most of the problems just come from the fact that people confuse these two levels.
I would not say: the same Western feminism in the last century went through a crisis of ideas of equality feminism-in favor of the concept of difference feminism, which presupposes taking into account the physiological characteristics of people.
However, there were also disagreements here:
Another cognitive reflection is that difference feminism is often identified with so-called cultural feminism. And one of his messages, apparently, is to explore the socio-cultural differences between the sexes, reformat the categories of femininity and femininity, removing the label of secondary nature from them.:
The point really is that accepting differences should not serve as grounds for discrimination, biologization, or questionable essentialism.
In my opinion, the desire to “turn a blind eye” to differences just leads to more discrimination.
black leather, white leather, yellow leather , whatever.
There's nothing weird or scary about it.
That's when people start substituting concepts and demanding that simple defining concepts be replaced with something else – this once again emphasizes that THEY are NOT LIKE THAT!
This is precisely the confusion of concepts. Non-discrimination is not when blacks and whites are grouped as “indeterminate colors” and the names “black” and “white”are banned. Non-discrimination is when blacks are called black, whites are called white, but the color of the skin is not the basis for any legal differences.
Race, gender, height, weight, etc. are all biological differences. And the social level at which legal relations appear is higher than the biological level. And most of the problems just come from the fact that people confuse these two levels.