Q&A Nine Question Two

Q: Does feminism today need to critique the truth seeking mechanisms of a modern society ostensibly sympathetic with the aims of feminism?

A: Alright, that is a bit of a leading question, but really: in a society where no one would ever claim to hate or oppress women why do we need a special advocate for women's interests?

Like the mid-century Marxist/Feminists we've been discussing in class who described the 'Happy-Homemaker syndrome,' its clear that the face value of a word almost never reflects it's total function. It's absolutely silly to suggest that because everyone says they have the best interests of women taken to heart that they actually do, or that their understanding of the interests of women is at all acceptable.

It's sort of like a little child who is told to apologise after doing wrong. When you tell them they where not sincere they might say that they said the words. Like people who now have taken the interests of women to heart may have said the words, but there is still an undercurrent of reluctance and misunderstanding.

Q&A Nine Question One

Q: Can a critique of a social order be the creative foundation of the replacement of that order?

A: I doubt that it can be the foundation of a replacement or a paradigmatic shift in an order. A critique, or a certain understanding, of a situation is necessarily embedded within the event that a critique is evaluating, a critique seems like it would be fundamentally involved with the event thus limiting its purview to engaging with what is the nature of the event.

A critique may open up the space for a fundamental departure from that order, but this is a step to creativity not towards a unified theory of anything.

I realize I'm being quite vague here with almost all of the terms used; imagine them in a context such as feminism. Feminism has succeed in rallying troops to the cause but has failed to do away with the fundamental antagonisms that created feminist desire in the first place.