Reddit mentions of Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives

>...someone who denies the value of etymology so as not to admit to the misandry and dishonsty (sic) inherent in the feminist redefinition of "patriarchy".

And here we go again...

>Patriarchy is not meant (or at the very least, isn't meant by all feminists) to encompass all social forms which produce inequality, rather it is to describe those forms that produce the dominance of men over women. That is to say, becuase patriarchy describes those things that make men privileged over women, it does not presuppose blame or that all oppression takes this form. It is a description of the a current order of things, not a prescription of blame. The question of blame is independent of the description of the current order....

You are incorrect to suggest that there is something inherent about the usage of the term patriarchy, especially within the diverse and broad field of feminist thought and scholarship.

>...In the introduction to Feminist Theory Reader: Local and global perspectives, McCann and Kim (2010) give a good explanation of the state of feminist theory and the purpose of learning such theory:

>>[G]iven that women live in so many different social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances, there can be no one theory of gender subordination or a best strategy for change. Nor has the development of feminist theory been linear or unidirectional. No final answers have emerged.... As Judith Butler has noted elsewhere, "gender identities emerge, ... shift, and very so that different identifications come into play depending upon the availability of legitimating cultural norms and opportunities" (1990, 331). Yet much useful knowledge is generated trough recurring debates and difficult dialogues about what feminism is and can be; about how to do feminist theory; about which theories adequately explain women's status in different social groups and historical locations; and about which theories offer the best strategies for changing gender relations. We believe, taken together, the essays [in this reader] effectively represent the multivocal feminist theory of this historical movement, as well as the multiple and shifting sites of feminist identities. We hope the resonance and discord among the multiple voices and perspectives in this collection of of essays will push readers to examine their own assumptions, the explanatory power and limits of these theories, and the relationships between feminist theories and practice. We end the anthology with readings that point to the new direction of feminist theory that have emerged from previous strands of conversation and debate between postmodern and standpoint theorists and between queer and feminist theorists.

>I think that this both provides a glimpse at the wide field of feminist thought, and why your narrative of a "mainstream" feminist movement or theory is mistaken. The totality of the the collective meaning of ideas like "patriarchy," oppression, and gender is lost when you present them in with a "straw" and shallow understanding. There is great differences among different feminist theorists and activist as to what form patriarchy takes, and how it comes about.

>In fact, I highly suggest you consider reading McCann and Kim's reader, it has a many feminist essays and writings, and does a great job of showing the different kinds of feminism and elucidates some of the disagreements and conflicts present within the wider discussions and debates among feminists. I own the 2nd edition, and it looks like a used copies are only about $8.

BeeTeaDubz: For as much effort as I put into a number of my comments in this subreddit, it is highly presumptuous of your to assume that I am arguing in bad faith when I clearly do the work of citing my sources and explaining my meaning. In fact, it is in very bad faith that you assume that I am arguing in bad faith when I have already done work clearing up the meaning of the term patriarchy when I (and a number of other feminists) choose to use the term. I am more then willing to debate the merits of individual uses and applications of terms within various bodies of feminist thought, which is something very important if one wishes to understand what these terms means. But I am not willing to let you (or anyone else) put words in my mouth.

> I've almost lost jobs because of it as well

Wow, if this is really bothering you that much, you may need to work on that in some therapy with a therapist you can trust. Also, pick up a book of feminist theory and read it. You don't seem to know enough about feminism to be making any judgment calls about it as an ideology.