Home › Groups › Critical Feminist Studies ›

Palin Mantrafesto

hwink's picture
Submitted by hwink on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:08am

Sorry about lateness of posting! This is the Palin/bell hooks mantrafesto done by myself, mbeale, and sara.gladwin

Feminists are made, not born.
Making feminism is a revolutionary act.
Revolutions of mindset can be violent.
Violence is an upheaval to oppression.

 

Groups:

Comments

S. Yaeger's picture

I agree that violence of the

Submitted by S. Yaeger on Sun, 04/15/2012 - 5:12pm.

I agree that violence of the mind, and causng discomfort is sometimes necesarry for change or progress to occur.  I'm struck by the idea that was brought up in class about declarative sentences being un-feminist, and I think your post ties into that idea.  I'm not sure that using forceful or assertive language is opposite to the idea of language being open.  I might even go a step further and say that a reluctance to use forceful language when the situation merits can hold people back.   I think many girls and women are socialized to be timid in their speech, hence the llting question sound at the end of a sentence that was described in class.  I think that socialization makes it much more dificult for a woman to be taken seriously in any kind of leadership role.  This is not say that we all ought to always speak forcefully, but that there are times when such speech is the best way to convey one's feelings.  To me, being able to access a variety of tonality is a liberating thing, thus makng language more open.

sara.gladwin's picture

Violence of the Mind

Submitted by sara.gladwin on Sun, 04/15/2012 - 12:41pm.

I was hoping to continue the conversation about forms of violence and the violence of language because I thought it was an interesting one within the frame of "Feminism is for everyone." Bell Hooks makes it very clear that all forms of violence, including certain forms of violent language, are damaging and MUST be altered. However, I found her own language and aggressive politics were violent as well. I feel that any form of "revolutionary" politics requires a "violence" of the mind; one that requires a significant alteration of thinking. A person must not only desire to upstage the social conventions surrounding them but the conventions that have been absorbed by the mind and then are projected outward. This change in thinking is radical- it asks a person to fight against their social conditioning and everything they have internalized; to reassess how they see the world and the identities they have come to align themselves with. I'm curious as to whether this violence of the mind is useful and productive. I'm inclined to say that in some instances, violence of language and mind can create change. This recalls back to mind our discussions revolving around activism earlier in the semester; where the point was made that perhaps activism needs to make people uncomfortable to a certain extent- the reveal the ways in which people have become passive in there ways of thinking. Any thoughts about violence and language? I worry that using this as a method to create change is dangerous and can promote other forms of violence. It also requires using forceful language, which is opposite to everything we've been discussing about the openness of lanuage.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

About Student Papers

This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated.

Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)

What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio

Recent Group Comments

randomness