redlightpolitics:

I’ve written before (brushed over might be a more accurate descriptor) about my interest in what I referred to as “a feminist ethics” and I have been kind of surprised about how little theory there is behind it. Sure, there are theories of feminist ethics, such as the works of philosophers like Carol Gilligan (whose work set some of the basis for the “Ethics of Care”) but in almost everything I read about feminist ethics, I am put off by two issues: 1) the staggering gender essentialism that surrounds most of the analysis and 2) how it is actually devoid of a more intersectional approach. To me, ethics are not removed from the overall social context where we exist. So, I would expect a feminist approach to ethics to take these into account. 

So now, I am trying to formulate some coherent thoughts around “the moral imperative” (which is part of Kant’s categorical imperative). The reason I am doing this is because I’ve been invited to give a workshop about radical anger and political action at a festival in May here in Amsterdam (I won’t disclose details until the program of the festival comes out because I wouldn’t want to spoil it for the organizers). So, I’ve been thinking of the “moral imperative” and how, to me, it is inextricably connected to anger and how both can be the basis for political action. Of course, this is not the only topic I am scribbling about in relation to political/ feminist anger, but it’s one of my starting points. And here is what I am failing at: I can hardly find any reference materials to support my ideas. Sure these ideas cannot be original (hardly anything is original these days, after we’ve been developing politics and philosophy as areas of study for a couple thousand years). It’s just that I find it hard to believe that feminist scholars/ academics would not be interested in these topics (alas, I am not part of academia so my searches are limited to whatever is available for the general public). Yet, I would expect there would be *some* books and/ or papers published by feminists on these topics.

Because, here’s what I find troubling in my search: how can a political and philosophical movement like feminism not have developed some considerable body of work related to ethics and how ethics relate to praxis? Sure I must be looking in the wrong places, right? Or could this be the very reason why feminism, as a philosophy, keeps failing on many levels (how after so many decades, we still need to explain basic concepts like intersectional analysis and so on). Or could it be that, as a philosophy, mainstream, contemporary feminism fails many of us because it has been inextricably tied to capitalism and its constant need to situate women in “careers”, instead of providing tools to lead ethically conscious lives and enact political change?

I have questions; I am failing to find the answers.

[Bolded part mine]

Hella.

1. mlle-annetoinette reblogged this from redlightpolitics
2. heavenearthandhoratio reblogged this from raspberryflavored
3. raspberryflavored reblogged this from espritfollet
4. espritfollet liked this
5. espritfollet reblogged this from redlightpolitics
6. whamola reblogged this from sterwood and added:

   Feminism “fails” because the patriarchy likes it that way. Also, the OP’s idea of “mainstream feminism” is all wrong...

7. matryoshhka liked this
8. kiriamaya liked this
9. athenasaurus said: I love all of this.
10. athenasaurus liked this
11. autochthones liked this
12. sterwood liked this
13. sterwood reblogged this from redlightpolitics
14. searchingforknowledge reblogged this from redlightpolitics
15. thecurvature liked this
16. smaddox liked this
17. se-smith liked this
18. ordinarymachines liked this
19. awkwardjerk liked this
20. blackamazon liked this
21. tinyvolcanicmoon liked this
22. thewhywhygirl liked this
23. lentilsandkale reblogged this from redlightpolitics
24. lentilsandkale said: I’m not surprised you’re having trouble. Academic feminism is divided between those who avoid the ethics because it is so weighed down by essentialism & lacking in intersectionality & those who will write theory all day but see no value in praxis.
25. green--street liked this
26. neroon said: From what little work I’ve done in these (broad) areas ages ago, I’d say it’s the latter point about the goals of the movement that’s key. Also the assumption that women are, still, kinder, gentler and not in need of an ethical framework.
27. green-street-politics reblogged this from redlightpolitics
28. iusedtoknowwhattosay liked this
29. fuckyeahappo liked this
30. touchofbedlam liked this
31. redlightpolitics posted this