Ugh, I'm twitching. This takes me back to the one Womens Studies class I took in college. On our first day, 30 upper to middle class white girls (and a few guys praying for death) were ceremoniously informed that we were, in fact, Oppressed. (Not the men, certainly not the men.)
When I ventured that I did not in fact feel Oppressed, my professor informed me that like a bird in a cage, I was so used to the "wires of my oppression" that I no longer saw them anymore.
Fortunately, she mistook my slack jawed look of "what the hell" for an "a-ha" moment, and I learned the requiste code words and phrases to spit out on papers to pass the class. Fun times.
Hmm. Well maybe its just the old post-structuralist in me talking but I don't find the argument so absurd. I mean, I realize that there are levels of meaning here and that, especially on its surface, that scene can be interpreted without so much racial subtext. On the other hand, it was always pretty clear to me that Whoopi Goldberg and her particular racial identity was a crucial element of that story. No point in getting into a whole postmodern analysis here but it seems to me that if the argument is that we can ignore the historical contextualization of race when thinking about how the story and its characters interact then I guess that is certainly true. But I also don't think its necessarily ridiculous to consider this racial historical context as you seem to be suggesting.
We-e-e-ell, the only way the linked statement "goes wrong" is by saying the scene "is actually about" one thing in particular. Whether any of the people involved consciously intended it or not, what the scene *shows* is that it's OK to erase a black woman's body to service a white man.
Did they mean it that way? Surely not. And the Emperor of the Emperor's New Clothes didn't *mean* to walk down the street bare-ass naked, either. Yet there he was with his butt hanging out, and there the makers of "Ghost" are, with their privilege hanging out.
Doctor Science,
When you say "the makers of 'Ghost,'" who exactly do you mean? Do you mean the screenwriter? Was Whoopi Goldberg's character originally written as a woman of color, or was Goldberg cast in the role as a way to get the film made? Are you talking about the casting director? Or the producers? Or the director? Or all of them together?
Let's put this in another context and say there's a similar scene in a film made by women of color--how does that affect your claim that the makers of "Ghost" are walking around with their privilege hanging out? Would that change anything?
I love to deconstruct with the best of 'em. However, never did I ONCE interpret that scene as Whoopi boning Demi. That said? I don't reject this understanding as asinine. In fact? I am intrigued by it. Not because it's, er, intriguing. But constructs and roles and hierarchies and race are too powerful in these United States to ignore. Sometimes a ghost is just a ghost. Sometimes? It's more.
"All of them together", for lack of knowing who had the power to determine what. Movie-making is a collective effort, which means it's particularly likely to express things no-one consciously thought about, stuff that "just happens" because it "seems natural". And part of what "seems natural" in our culture is for "straight white male" to be the default value of human -- even when what's really happening is interracial lesbian sex.
a similar scene in a film made by women of color--how does that affect your claim that the makers of "Ghost" are walking around with their privilege hanging out?
If women of color were the major players in a major Hollywood romantic movie, racial and gender privilege in America would already be unrecognizably different. "A similar scene in a film made by women of color" in *our* world would be a different scene in a *completely* different sort of movie.
Kat, is there a chance that you're referring to this passage by Marilyn Frye?
If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.
It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.
Just because if so, it makes very different point from the one you say it makes. And while you're free to disagree with it, is it really so preposterous as to be the butt of a joke?
Also, class and gender are different; a woman can be upper-class and still be significantly negatively affected by her gender.
[Formatting note: I blockquoted those paragraphs separately because when I formatted them as one block quote, the second paragraph showed up as part of the body text. Just mentioning it in case it's a bug that needs fixing.]
"And the Emperor of the Emperor's New Clothes didn't *mean* to walk down the street bare-ass naked, either."
Problem here for critical theorists - there was no Emperor acting intentionally or unintentionally as were the creative team that produced Ghost. Only a fairy tale writer who intentionally portrayed an Emperor walking down the street naked to make a very specific point. You'll have to come up with a more complex analogy implicating Hans Christian Anderson in issues regarding nude male bodies or some such to reach the post-modernist bar with this one. Definitely have got to go beyond the transgressive act of the "tailors"in hoisting the Emperor on the petard of his own vanity and credulity, because I got that when I was 6 years old.
Well all I can say is that the fact that Whoopi was rewarded with an Oscar for her performance in Ghost, which was super broad and kind of for lack of a better word, "stereotypical," when she gave a far more nuanced and emotional performance in the Color Purple has always irked me. I don't know that that has anything to do with white ownership of black bodies or whatever, but it certainly made me aware of certain "wires of oppression." I'm just sayin' is all.
The Frye metaphor doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. If one is so myopic one can't see a wire next to another wire, then one can't see the bird either.
The metaphor I like in this realm is the lion tamer's chair, as explicated in Errol Morris' "Cheap Fast and Out of Control" - the lion's focus is hijacked by the trainer as each leg of the chair is presented as stimuli in the lion's face. Eventually, no leg is any more important than the other, and the lion becomes confused and docile.
Or yunno, there's always The Matrix for that "You're trapped in a system and you don't even know it" sorta trope. Good movie.
Definitely have got to go beyond the transgressive act of the "tailors"in hoisting the Emperor on the petard of his own vanity and credulity, because I got that when I was 6 years old.
Is the fairy tale about the dangers of personal vanity or is it a wider critique of the human tendency toward social conformity? In either case, I think you're right if you mean that critical theorists are not so much concerned with questions of morality as they are with understanding, or deconstructing, the social assumptions that exist within our common cultural narratives. A post structuralist analysis of that particular story would probably be more focused on the class assumptions at the heart of the story than on the nudity itself.
My friends like to make fun of the things we used to think and say in college by analyzing the crap out of something but we've never been able to do it in so few words.
Jingo: If one is so myopic one can't see a wire next to another wire, then one can't see the bird either.
Experimentation (taking off my eyeglasses for a moment) says: you're wrong. The wires are narrow and blur away to nothing without my glasses, the bird is wide and remains visible as a big yellow blob. Not to mention that the bird is farther away than the wires, so will be clearer to the myopic eye. The metaphor holds.
My reference to the Emperor's New Clothes was actually a more cooth way of saying "Ghost" is showing its ass -- where the expression, as I understand it, specifically means "as stupid as though you'd forgotten to wear pants and then got all shirty* at people who point out your lack of nether coverings."
I don't think the problem is with the observation - I've heard crazier interpretations of far more mundane things - I think the problem is that in order to really follow the analysis through... you have to spend a lot of time watching Ghost. And, as I said at the time to a man I was dating (and stopped seeing pretty much right after), I would just as soon have had a Paramount Executive come to my house and take $7.50 (ah, the old days) from me, rather than waste my time and their millions producing crap like Ghost.
By the way, about the bird and the cage... I thought Frye's point was that you are (I am) the bird. Did I miss something? Because not only did it make sense to me... it's about the most spot-on description of misunderstanding one's own oppression I've heard.
Hmmm...even if I were inclined to take that seriously...
If I recall correctly, the male character asks Whoopi's character for permission to 'use' her body...to which she agrees. In my book, as long as it's consensual kinkiness, who cares?
Although, as a lesbian watching that scene, I always kind of wondered if they felt they had to dumb it down a bit by making it clear that it was a ghost rather than 2 lesbians getting it on...in case someone lost track of the plot. heh. Or were they afraid of potential ick factor and controversy? Or maybe a bit of both?
What I find amusing is how our singers always feel compelled to change the gender of a cover song to the opposite sex. Not all cultures do that...for example, in Brazilian popular music it is common to keep the lyrics as they are.
That some are so insistent that there's no there there makes me more convinced that there is, in fact, SOMETHING to this "nothing" (if for no other reason than to spit in the eye of the "Trust me; I know best" crowd)! And with that? On this post? I'm "ghost" (and, unlike Doctor Science, I don't know how to link the Urban Dictionary, so you'll just have to look it up yourself)!
Whatever the merits or fallacies of the analysis are, it's still kind of amazing that a tossed off, two sentence blog post has generated this many comments . . . on another blog.
I envision an Amanda Marcotte-TNC beef in the making. Unfailingly, she manages to make her posts about female opression, and except in those rare cases where a bright line can be drawn between policy and female autonomy, she justs ends up undermining her central message.
I'm not sure whom you're addressing, weboy, but if it's me, I just meant that while Kat (assuming she was referring to that passage) said it meant "I was so used to the 'wires of my oppression' that I no longer saw them anymore," my interpretation of it is, instead, that one can look at specific instances of sexism (or other isms) and miss the way that they all work together as part of a system of oppression. As for whether you're the bird, I think it works either way––it's instructive for privileged people, too.
This whole thread made me chuckle. I love the post-structuralism that is written tongue in cheek, and then of course, tongue sticking out razzing everyone...
"Just because if so, it makes very different point from the one you say it makes. And while you're free to disagree with it, is it really so preposterous as to be the butt of a joke? "
Yes because it's really just the tired, presumptuous old Marxist trope of "false consciousness" missappropiraited by some spoiled little rich girls.
"Also, class and gender are different; a woman can be upper-class and still be significantly negatively affected by her gender."
As much as they are advantaged by their gender - born with a "meal ticket between their legs" and all that? Remember, these are very expensive trophy wives we are talking about, and even the starter wives require a substantial income in a man for him to even be in the running.
Anyway, blind old me - all the time I thought they were just having some fun with a lesbian scene.
Jim, I'll keep in mind that feminist theory is merely the musings of "spoiled little rich girls" (who are apparently too stupid to do anything but misappropriate important ideas) and is hollow and worthless enough to be dismissed in one snarky line in a blog comment.
Remember, these are very expensive trophy wives we are talking about
Who, women's studies students?
Not all upper-class women are "trophy wives," of course, but even if some have found a way to use their gender to some advantage, that does not, in fact, negate the fact that they are women in a sexist society.
all the time I thought they were just having some fun with a lesbian scene.
You may note that I have said nothing about Ghost or that joke interpretation of it. I haven't seen Ghost. If you want my opinion on that, though, it's that while feminist/etc. interpretations can be a little silly at times (much like any kind of interpretation), I don't think anything is above (or below) analysis.
"Jim, I'll keep in mind that feminist theory is merely the musings of "spoiled little rich girls" (who are apparently too stupid to do anything but misappropriate important ideas) and is hollow and worthless enough to be dismissed in one snarky line in a blog comment."
That will be a good start then. You may eventually come to understand then why it is so offensive when American feminists use expressions like "speak bitterness." You may even come to understand WOC feminists' criticisms of so many white feminists.
"...who are apparently too stupid ..."
I don't think they are too stupid. Their sisters in real academic disciplines such a linguistics are often brilliant; some like Mary Haas have been foundational in thier fields. I don't think they're stupid; I think they're lazy and dishonest, which was pretty clear from my wording to an honest reading.
There must be parts of feminist theory that are worthwhile. Somewhere. But theories that assert a priori the existence of Patriarchy in a society where fatherhood is as marginalized as it is in this one, and form the basis of a movement that decries "the epidemic of violence against women" in a society where the murder rates and the incarceration rates for men dwarf those for women, is on the intellectual level and has the credibility of Creationism.
"You may note that I have said nothing about Ghost or that joke interpretation of it."
You must have assumed I was addressing that part of my comment specifically to you. I can see how you might, but it was really a general comment.
I understand (and even share) many criticisms of white feminism. I posted that passage because I thought that it should be discussed rather than dismissed offhand. You should not assume, from that, that I think that it or any piece of feminist thought is beyond criticism. That, like the tone of your whole comment, is presumptuous and condescending.
Regardless, you seem to be an MRA, and I know better than to waste my limited free time arguing with anonymous MRAs on the Internet. Good day, sir.
"That, like the tone of your whole comment, is presumptuous and condescending."
I didn't treat you like a lady, and that makes me a misogynist and an MRA, so you get to flounce out of the room like a teenaged girl. Quite the progressive, quite the feminist, quite grown-up woman, aren't you?
And you also seem to see nothing hypocritical in presumoptuously judging someone else presumptuous. You need to grow up.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I can't even tell you how many women's lit profs I know who would read that with a straight face. Le sigh.
You said it, BabylonSista. There are some pretty big blogs where that would get really ugly really quick, too.
Ugh, I'm twitching. This takes me back to the one Womens Studies class I took in college. On our first day, 30 upper to middle class white girls (and a few guys praying for death) were ceremoniously informed that we were, in fact, Oppressed. (Not the men, certainly not the men.)
When I ventured that I did not in fact feel Oppressed, my professor informed me that like a bird in a cage, I was so used to the "wires of my oppression" that I no longer saw them anymore.
Fortunately, she mistook my slack jawed look of "what the hell" for an "a-ha" moment, and I learned the requiste code words and phrases to spit out on papers to pass the class. Fun times.
The mention of a Whoopi Goldberg sex scene made me imagine a scene with Picard and Guinan. Engage!
Damn you Jingo!!
(reaches for the retina scrubbrush)
Hmm. Well maybe its just the old post-structuralist in me talking but I don't find the argument so absurd. I mean, I realize that there are levels of meaning here and that, especially on its surface, that scene can be interpreted without so much racial subtext. On the other hand, it was always pretty clear to me that Whoopi Goldberg and her particular racial identity was a crucial element of that story. No point in getting into a whole postmodern analysis here but it seems to me that if the argument is that we can ignore the historical contextualization of race when thinking about how the story and its characters interact then I guess that is certainly true. But I also don't think its necessarily ridiculous to consider this racial historical context as you seem to be suggesting.
"maybe it's just the old post-structuralist in me talking"
Step away from the crisis of representation, sir and put your hands above your head !
We-e-e-ell, the only way the linked statement "goes wrong" is by saying the scene "is actually about" one thing in particular. Whether any of the people involved consciously intended it or not, what the scene *shows* is that it's OK to erase a black woman's body to service a white man.
Did they mean it that way? Surely not. And the Emperor of the Emperor's New Clothes didn't *mean* to walk down the street bare-ass naked, either. Yet there he was with his butt hanging out, and there the makers of "Ghost" are, with their privilege hanging out.
Doctor Science,
When you say "the makers of 'Ghost,'" who exactly do you mean? Do you mean the screenwriter? Was Whoopi Goldberg's character originally written as a woman of color, or was Goldberg cast in the role as a way to get the film made? Are you talking about the casting director? Or the producers? Or the director? Or all of them together?
Let's put this in another context and say there's a similar scene in a film made by women of color--how does that affect your claim that the makers of "Ghost" are walking around with their privilege hanging out? Would that change anything?
Incertus (Brian), I assume you are referring to Spirit Lost by Neema Barnett?
I love to deconstruct with the best of 'em. However, never did I ONCE interpret that scene as Whoopi boning Demi. That said? I don't reject this understanding as asinine. In fact? I am intrigued by it. Not because it's, er, intriguing. But constructs and roles and hierarchies and race are too powerful in these United States to ignore. Sometimes a ghost is just a ghost. Sometimes? It's more.
Incertus (Brian), I assume you are referring to Spirit Lost by Neema Barnett?
Actually, I wasn't--I've never heard of it--I was just offering a hypothetical, but I'm glad if there's a real-world example of it.
Brent: I gotta say, I don't completely disagree with you.
@lever
This is one of those times it's just a ghost.
Incertus/Brian:
"All of them together", for lack of knowing who had the power to determine what. Movie-making is a collective effort, which means it's particularly likely to express things no-one consciously thought about, stuff that "just happens" because it "seems natural". And part of what "seems natural" in our culture is for "straight white male" to be the default value of human -- even when what's really happening is interracial lesbian sex.
a similar scene in a film made by women of color--how does that affect your claim that the makers of "Ghost" are walking around with their privilege hanging out?
If women of color were the major players in a major Hollywood romantic movie, racial and gender privilege in America would already be unrecognizably different. "A similar scene in a film made by women of color" in *our* world would be a different scene in a *completely* different sort of movie.
Kat, is there a chance that you're referring to this passage by Marilyn Frye?
Just because if so, it makes very different point from the one you say it makes. And while you're free to disagree with it, is it really so preposterous as to be the butt of a joke?Also, class and gender are different; a woman can be upper-class and still be significantly negatively affected by her gender.
[Formatting note: I blockquoted those paragraphs separately because when I formatted them as one block quote, the second paragraph showed up as part of the body text. Just mentioning it in case it's a bug that needs fixing.]
"And the Emperor of the Emperor's New Clothes didn't *mean* to walk down the street bare-ass naked, either."
Problem here for critical theorists - there was no Emperor acting intentionally or unintentionally as were the creative team that produced Ghost. Only a fairy tale writer who intentionally portrayed an Emperor walking down the street naked to make a very specific point. You'll have to come up with a more complex analogy implicating Hans Christian Anderson in issues regarding nude male bodies or some such to reach the post-modernist bar with this one. Definitely have got to go beyond the transgressive act of the "tailors"in hoisting the Emperor on the petard of his own vanity and credulity, because I got that when I was 6 years old.
Well all I can say is that the fact that Whoopi was rewarded with an Oscar for her performance in Ghost, which was super broad and kind of for lack of a better word, "stereotypical," when she gave a far more nuanced and emotional performance in the Color Purple has always irked me. I don't know that that has anything to do with white ownership of black bodies or whatever, but it certainly made me aware of certain "wires of oppression." I'm just sayin' is all.
The Frye metaphor doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. If one is so myopic one can't see a wire next to another wire, then one can't see the bird either.
The metaphor I like in this realm is the lion tamer's chair, as explicated in Errol Morris' "Cheap Fast and Out of Control" - the lion's focus is hijacked by the trainer as each leg of the chair is presented as stimuli in the lion's face. Eventually, no leg is any more important than the other, and the lion becomes confused and docile.
Or yunno, there's always The Matrix for that "You're trapped in a system and you don't even know it" sorta trope. Good movie.
Definitely have got to go beyond the transgressive act of the "tailors"in hoisting the Emperor on the petard of his own vanity and credulity, because I got that when I was 6 years old.
Is the fairy tale about the dangers of personal vanity or is it a wider critique of the human tendency toward social conformity? In either case, I think you're right if you mean that critical theorists are not so much concerned with questions of morality as they are with understanding, or deconstructing, the social assumptions that exist within our common cultural narratives. A post structuralist analysis of that particular story would probably be more focused on the class assumptions at the heart of the story than on the nudity itself.
Speaking about white ownership of black bodies, how about the latest with Michael Steele ?
Awe. Some.
My friends like to make fun of the things we used to think and say in college by analyzing the crap out of something but we've never been able to do it in so few words.
Jingo:
If one is so myopic one can't see a wire next to another wire, then one can't see the bird either.
Experimentation (taking off my eyeglasses for a moment) says: you're wrong. The wires are narrow and blur away to nothing without my glasses, the bird is wide and remains visible as a big yellow blob. Not to mention that the bird is farther away than the wires, so will be clearer to the myopic eye. The metaphor holds.
My reference to the Emperor's New Clothes was actually a more cooth way of saying "Ghost" is showing its ass -- where the expression, as I understand it, specifically means "as stupid as though you'd forgotten to wear pants and then got all shirty* at people who point out your lack of nether coverings."
*it's a joke, son
I don't think the problem is with the observation - I've heard crazier interpretations of far more mundane things - I think the problem is that in order to really follow the analysis through... you have to spend a lot of time watching Ghost. And, as I said at the time to a man I was dating (and stopped seeing pretty much right after), I would just as soon have had a Paramount Executive come to my house and take $7.50 (ah, the old days) from me, rather than waste my time and their millions producing crap like Ghost.
By the way, about the bird and the cage... I thought Frye's point was that you are (I am) the bird. Did I miss something? Because not only did it make sense to me... it's about the most spot-on description of misunderstanding one's own oppression I've heard.
Hmmm...even if I were inclined to take that seriously...
If I recall correctly, the male character asks Whoopi's character for permission to 'use' her body...to which she agrees. In my book, as long as it's consensual kinkiness, who cares?
Although, as a lesbian watching that scene, I always kind of wondered if they felt they had to dumb it down a bit by making it clear that it was a ghost rather than 2 lesbians getting it on...in case someone lost track of the plot. heh. Or were they afraid of potential ick factor and controversy? Or maybe a bit of both?
What I find amusing is how our singers always feel compelled to change the gender of a cover song to the opposite sex. Not all cultures do that...for example, in Brazilian popular music it is common to keep the lyrics as they are.
Doctor Science: Hee!
That some are so insistent that there's no there there makes me more convinced that there is, in fact, SOMETHING to this "nothing" (if for no other reason than to spit in the eye of the "Trust me; I know best" crowd)! And with that? On this post? I'm "ghost" (and, unlike Doctor Science, I don't know how to link the Urban Dictionary, so you'll just have to look it up yourself)!
Whatever the merits or fallacies of the analysis are, it's still kind of amazing that a tossed off, two sentence blog post has generated this many comments . . . on another blog.
Welcome to the intertubez, Hill Rat.
"That some are so insistent that there's no there there makes me more convinced that there is, in fact, SOMETHING to this "nothing""
Spoken like a 'Truther.' I feel the same way about 9/11.
I envision an Amanda Marcotte-TNC beef in the making. Unfailingly, she manages to make her posts about female opression, and except in those rare cases where a bright line can be drawn between policy and female autonomy, she justs ends up undermining her central message.
I'm not sure whom you're addressing, weboy, but if it's me, I just meant that while Kat (assuming she was referring to that passage) said it meant "I was so used to the 'wires of my oppression' that I no longer saw them anymore," my interpretation of it is, instead, that one can look at specific instances of sexism (or other isms) and miss the way that they all work together as part of a system of oppression. As for whether you're the bird, I think it works either way––it's instructive for privileged people, too.
brucds, dude-san, we don't want him. He's a genuine, African-American homegrown bozo and Republican fool. Keep'em, yours.
If it wasn't clear. I wasn't being serious. I think opposition being evidence of truth is a ridiculous concept.
This whole thread made me chuckle. I love the post-structuralism that is written tongue in cheek, and then of course, tongue sticking out razzing everyone...
Emma,
"Just because if so, it makes very different point from the one you say it makes. And while you're free to disagree with it, is it really so preposterous as to be the butt of a joke? "
Yes because it's really just the tired, presumptuous old Marxist trope of "false consciousness" missappropiraited by some spoiled little rich girls.
"Also, class and gender are different; a woman can be upper-class and still be significantly negatively affected by her gender."
As much as they are advantaged by their gender - born with a "meal ticket between their legs" and all that? Remember, these are very expensive trophy wives we are talking about, and even the starter wives require a substantial income in a man for him to even be in the running.
Anyway, blind old me - all the time I thought they were just having some fun with a lesbian scene.
Jim, I'll keep in mind that feminist theory is merely the musings of "spoiled little rich girls" (who are apparently too stupid to do anything but misappropriate important ideas) and is hollow and worthless enough to be dismissed in one snarky line in a blog comment.
Remember, these are very expensive trophy wives we are talking about
Who, women's studies students?
Not all upper-class women are "trophy wives," of course, but even if some have found a way to use their gender to some advantage, that does not, in fact, negate the fact that they are women in a sexist society.
all the time I thought they were just having some fun with a lesbian scene.
You may note that I have said nothing about Ghost or that joke interpretation of it. I haven't seen Ghost. If you want my opinion on that, though, it's that while feminist/etc. interpretations can be a little silly at times (much like any kind of interpretation), I don't think anything is above (or below) analysis.
"Jim, I'll keep in mind that feminist theory is merely the musings of "spoiled little rich girls" (who are apparently too stupid to do anything but misappropriate important ideas) and is hollow and worthless enough to be dismissed in one snarky line in a blog comment."
That will be a good start then. You may eventually come to understand then why it is so offensive when American feminists use expressions like "speak bitterness." You may even come to understand WOC feminists' criticisms of so many white feminists.
"...who are apparently too stupid ..."
I don't think they are too stupid. Their sisters in real academic disciplines such a linguistics are often brilliant; some like Mary Haas have been foundational in thier fields. I don't think they're stupid; I think they're lazy and dishonest, which was pretty clear from my wording to an honest reading.
There must be parts of feminist theory that are worthwhile. Somewhere. But theories that assert a priori the existence of Patriarchy in a society where fatherhood is as marginalized as it is in this one, and form the basis of a movement that decries "the epidemic of violence against women" in a society where the murder rates and the incarceration rates for men dwarf those for women, is on the intellectual level and has the credibility of Creationism.
"You may note that I have said nothing about Ghost or that joke interpretation of it."
You must have assumed I was addressing that part of my comment specifically to you. I can see how you might, but it was really a general comment.
I understand (and even share) many criticisms of white feminism. I posted that passage because I thought that it should be discussed rather than dismissed offhand. You should not assume, from that, that I think that it or any piece of feminist thought is beyond criticism. That, like the tone of your whole comment, is presumptuous and condescending.
Regardless, you seem to be an MRA, and I know better than to waste my limited free time arguing with anonymous MRAs on the Internet. Good day, sir.
"That, like the tone of your whole comment, is presumptuous and condescending."
I didn't treat you like a lady, and that makes me a misogynist and an MRA, so you get to flounce out of the room like a teenaged girl. Quite the progressive, quite the feminist, quite grown-up woman, aren't you?
And you also seem to see nothing hypocritical in presumoptuously judging someone else presumptuous. You need to grow up.