Why, yes, this post would probably have been a journal entry (we had to write little reaction papers in a weekly journal) for my Social Theory class...if that class hadn't ended last week. *shakes fist*

Also, I think this is my Day o' Sociology ramblings

I've been reading this book, Feminist Foundations, which is basically a social theory reader from a feminist perspective. It provides the sociological papers that basically formed the basis of second wave feminist theory.

It's interesting. I've been grappling a lot lately about the intersection of the micro and the macro. The individual and society. How to recognize personal autonomy while still recognizing the larger social forces that are at work. We talked about this a lot in my awesome social theory course. Ethnomethodology. *just likes using big words*

Anyway, this book has provided some interesting food for thought (for me at least, but I am a huge nerd).

From My Four Revolutions by Jessie Bernard in 1973.

Mills's (1959, pp. 225-26) last imperative - to reveal the human meaning of public issues by relating them to personal troubles - was especially salient in the process that came to be known as consciousness raising. Women who had always been blamed for their miseries, rebuked for mentioning them, and told that something was wrong with them were liberated when they came to see that they were not defective individuals but victims of oppressive institutions. Their method, like that of their male counterparts, has since been given the name of ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967). Young (1971, p. 279) defines it as a special type of conflict methodology which requires one to poke, probe, provoke and puncture the social system in order to reveal its characteristics. By such techniques, the writings of these early feminists led readers suddenly to become aware of a wide gamut of phenomena which they had always taken for granted. Their consciousness was raised.

There's also this excerpt from Equality Between the Sexes by Alice S. Rossi in 1964.

Our society has been so inundated with psychoanalytic thinking that any dissatisfaction or conflict in personal and family life is considered to require solution on an individual basis. This goes well with the general American value stress on individualism, and American women have increasingly resorted to psychotherapy, the most highly individualized solution of all, for the answers to the problems they have as women. In the process the idea has been lost that many problems, even in the personal family sphere, cannot be solved on an individual basis, but require solution on a societal level by changing the institutional contexts within which we live.

So, feminism. The structural inequality of women in society is indisputable fact. The wage gap, fact. The inequality of poverty, fact. The underrepresentation of women in political positions, fact. The underrepresentation of women in the media, fact. The disproportionate sexualization of women and girls in the media, fact. The disproportionate vulnerability of women to sexual assault and other intimate violence, fact.

I do not believe that acknowledging these facts is inherently disempowering. Because that is the macro, the society. This is now where the individual comes in, autonomy. How do you handle this society as it is? What do you do?

Everybody's gonna have a different answer. Feminists are gonna have different answers. But feminism is about dismantling the structures of inequality. It's not necessarily about dictating personal autonomy (or at least it shouldn't be).

Macro. Micro. I especially get caught up with this in discussions about rape. Macro, rape culture. Big view. Feminists seek to dismantle it. But then you get the micro, the individual. Those are the arguments of, "Well, that's a nice thought, but we still have to keep ourselves safe now (so you shouldn't drink too much/wear that outfit/whatever)."

I think feminism is best when it's acknowledging the micro while addressing the macro. I think that micro concerns can be red herrings in feminist discussions, though, because it's not about the individuals. It's about the structures. No matter how much I read, I still keep coming back to that. Arguments about whether feminists can shave their legs or wear heels are pointless. It's not about those individual women. It's about the structure of society that gives brownie points to women who conform to contemporary beauty standards. Why does this happen? How do we change that?

Likewise, the rape discussions aren't about whether women actually want to walk naked down the street without being assaulted. It's not about that. It's about why this idea is so ludicrous to us in the first place. Why are women's bodies so highly sexualized? Why is men's entitled behavior assumed to be an unchangeable given?

It's the structures. I don't want to get caught up in the micro. Everybody navigates society as best they can. Society presents us a range of options, but it stacks the decks so some will seem more attractive. I don't think it denies a person's autonomy to recognize this. As a feminist, it's that deck-stacking I want to focus on. When people go round and round about how practical it is for young women to take self-defense courses to protect against rape, I want to just turn and point at the culture that is producing that. That's what matters. That's what needs to change.

Welp, that's that. I'm gonna go read Spuffy fanfic now.