A few years ago there was a conference in Minneapolis on “Feminism and Rhetoric.” I went as a doctrinaire, whiny feminist. The focus of my rant was directed at younger feminist theorists who were using an arcane language that I found an obstruction to my understanding. I thought not only was it arcane, it was an act of cowardice because… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (8)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have been one of those high fallutin’ feminists who labored over the language in order to be taken seriously, and I’ve been a feminist who marched in DC in 1992 with a crude sign graphically depicting the only bush I felt was worthy of the white house (if you get my meaning)… I grew up poor, abused and feminism saved my ass too! Finding Dorothy Allison in 1993 was a revelation and a joy. Her voice is still so honest it’s painful - but that’s one of the phases of growth isn’t it? Whether we speak the language of academics or the language of the cotton mills, women all speak the language of common experience. AND… Wolf is 11 years old???? How is it possible???? Congratulations on your marriage!
Posted by Liz Brown on Apr 27, 2004 at 4:49 PM Wow, this article reads as if she were speaking directly to me! I would love to hear this woman speak in person! Fuck that, I would love to meet her! Every movement needs a person like this noble and brutally truthful woman.
Posted by Brian Siefke on Apr 29, 2004 at 3:08 AM The bottom line is—the arcane and unintelligible language used by academics is a barrier to reaching those who aren’t academics. And lawmakers, judges, politicians, police, battering husbands, divorce lawyers, teachers, and social service workers are not academics.
For adherents of some disciplines, using the resources allotted to them by academia to produce arcane, unread tomes may be fine, but this isn’t doing feminism any good. We have real world problems which need solved. Feminism is not a theoretical construct. It’s a real reaction to real problems in the real world.
We need practical output that will lead to progress in the real world—a way to make welfare and childcare work, without creating dependency, and make funding it politically palatable, maybe. Or, actually come up with an effective plan for the overhaul of divorce law, custody law, prenups or civil union contracts that would help relieve the inequity in marriage! Something that would make sense to policymakers!
Women enjoying the money available inside academia should start writing material that is actually useful to abused women, women doing the double shift, women abandoned with child, women battered and abused, women accused of being ìsluts,î women so scared to death of being accused of being a ìslutî that they will do anything to get into and stay inside a relationship—and let the chips fall where they may!
The problem is not just that this dense verbiage is hard to understand; with a little practice and a lot of spare time, anyone can decipher the stuff. The real problem is: even once understood, the “insights” in it have little practical value. I don’t think many campaign managers are going to be laboring over this material when trying to craft policies to attract the female vote.Let’s push the Women’s Studies Depts produce draft bills to send down to Capitol Hill. Let’s see a little legalese. That’s some hard-to-understand language I’d be more than happy to labor over.
Jan VanDenBerg
femaleeye.blogspot.com
Posted by Jan VanDenBerg on Apr 29, 2004 at 11:35 AM Academics, and feminists in particular have overwhelmingly thrown themselves out of reality. There terminology and vocabulary of the heavy suggests they are not interested in the public only in publication and publicizing.
Posted by Haynes on Apr 30, 2004 at 1:47 PM I love this article and I hate arcane accedemic language. I’m a historian, or at least I’ve got a Masters in history. However, as I want to write clearly, I’m probably never going to get to go on to get my PhD. Accedemia is so determined to speak in perfect jargon that they no longer care if they can be understood by anyone outside their specialty. Feminism has become seen as property of the accademy. They don’t want women like Dorothy Allison mussing up their property. I’m so glad they can’t run her off.
Posted by Thomas Devine on May 2, 2004 at 8:29 PM Iíve heard so many times academic feminists have to use this dense jargon in order to ìbe taken seriously.î Taken seriously by whom? Who is criticizing young feminists for failing to write in this unintelligible manner? Is it the older women who are invested in this wasteful junk, is it the denizens of neighboring disciplines who compete with the Womenís Studies Depts for funds or is it the ìacademic communityî in general? Probably all of the above . . .
It certainly appears to be those who are handing out the cash ñ administrators, journal editors and hiring committees, foundation grant-givers ñ who are forcing this debilitating straight jacket onto the women who enjoy the benefits of the tax-deductible (partially tax-funded) money available inside academia.. I think we, the taxpayers, deserve better for our money.
In my opinion, attacking anything not written in this nonsense verbiage is a way for the men and non-feminists who control academia to neutralize the efforts that women have put into building sanctuaries for leftist women inside academia. For 40 years women have worked to get salaried positions, fellowships and so on created for progressive women in academia. The requirement that those who occupy these valuable positions generate this psychobabble renders them useless and irrelevant to helping solve women’s real world problems. Itís the counterstrategy of the sexists who control the ivory tower: ìLet them have their professorships and departments, those she-whiners and lawsuit-filers, but let’s harass them with harsh and relentless criticism if they produce anything that could create any further progress in the real world. That could set up a vicious cycle ñ they gain ground here, use it to gain ground with new laws and better policies, that helps them come at us again for equity in other departments . . . So, if those harpies generate any intelligible material that attracts any off-campus attention and support, let’s set up a chorus labeling it “not quite serious,” “nontheoretical, “elementary,” ìobviously stated,î ìoriented toward the layman,î and so on and on. Let’s get together, harp and harp at them and render their output useless.î —continued below—
Posted by Jan VanDenBerg on May 4, 2004 at 8:22 PM Feminists caught in this hostile environment find that using this jargon creates a “mystique” around their material that helps them to survive in the academic environment, but is that something anymore worth doing?
If you have to give up everything you believe in—progress in the real world for real women—to protect yourself from the cynical, competitive, harassment-monitored, backbiting, hypercritical, hypocritical closet-sexists who populate academia, maybe it makes sense to figure out a new way to bring in your baloney money.
The best positions in Women’s Studies Departments pay about enough to barely get by. One can make that much doing a lot of things that don’t require prostituting your work. If feminism is what gives meaning to your life, should you comply with set of onerous and vicious requirements designed to render it ineffectual ñ just for a little paltry cash you could more easily make doing technical writing or even waiting tables?
It’s not that hard to make money—and it is worth it if it frees you from a poisonous environment which is turning your output into unreadable junk which has no value.
Academia needs to look carefully at itself. Why can’t women like Dorothy Allison, who have something worthwhile to say and can actually say it in a manner which allows the nonacademic listener to understand her message, get an academic position, so she wouldn’t have to live in a trailer park?
Jan VanDenBerg
femaleeye.blogspot.com
Posted by Jan VanDenBerg on May 4, 2004 at 8:22 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by Terry on Apr 30, 2004 at 10:39 AM 
Also by Dorothy Allison
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
