I just put in a rant about gender essentialist "feminism" and the crazy push to get more stereotypically feminine people editing Wikipedia. Once I'd calmed down by writing the rant and walking my dogs, I realized that I wasn't actually responding to the article. It doesn't promote the goal of more "women" (i.e. stereotypically feminine and/or female-named persons) on Wikipedia, though it does take it for granted. And I wouldn't even call it gender essentialist, though its presumptions and language are best understood in terms of gender stereotyping, the use of "masculinist" is probably best translated as "culturally hegemonic" or similar.
Unfortunately, I don't have the energy or patience to deconstruct the language used - just to note it's a language common among various self-identified anti-hegemonic literati, many of whom call themselves "feminist", "womanist", etc. (Others using similar language focus on race rather than sex/gender; I'm unclear what they call themselves. And others are just plain fluffy bunny "liberals" - in the modern American sense of "liberal".) It was the common argot among most folks at the school where I studied theology - and far too taken-for-granted for anyone to ever produce a master translation key. It also seems to be the common argot among such groups as pagans in Berkeley, where it's generally used in a risibly clueless fashion. The assumption among folks for whom this language is (effectively) hegemonic is that it represents The Truth, obvious to any right-thinking person - and hence the only thing that needs to be explained is the facts/ethics behind it. Obviously I disagree.
At any rate, "masculinist" means something like "giving higher value to stereotypically masculine values/behaviours". It's possible to use this language without presuming that those behaviours/values have anything to do with the natural inclinations and state of males. Possible, but uncommon; gender essentialism is so much simpler ;0)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-12-01 08:07 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, I don't have the energy or patience to deconstruct the language used - just to note it's a language common among various self-identified anti-hegemonic literati, many of whom call themselves "feminist", "womanist", etc. (Others using similar language focus on race rather than sex/gender; I'm unclear what they call themselves. And others are just plain fluffy bunny "liberals" - in the modern American sense of "liberal".) It was the common argot among most folks at the school where I studied theology - and far too taken-for-granted for anyone to ever produce a master translation key. It also seems to be the common argot among such groups as pagans in Berkeley, where it's generally used in a risibly clueless fashion. The assumption among folks for whom this language is (effectively) hegemonic is that it represents The Truth, obvious to any right-thinking person - and hence the only thing that needs to be explained is the facts/ethics behind it. Obviously I disagree.
At any rate, "masculinist" means something like "giving higher value to stereotypically masculine values/behaviours". It's possible to use this language without presuming that those behaviours/values have anything to do with the natural inclinations and state of males. Possible, but uncommon; gender essentialism is so much simpler ;0)