In a comment to this post from The Countess today noting the recent dustup between my response¹ to Feministe’s post on “hijabing” as a potentially empowering feminist performative, and Lauren’s, uh, spirited reply to that response (the substantive parts of which I answered here), Alon Levy observes that I deploy what he calls the “spurious” distinction between “equity feminism” and “gender feminism”—a remark that solicits this explanation from The Countess, Trish Wilson:
Ick. You probably know that “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” were stereotypes created by Christina Hoff Sommers. “Gender feminists” are for the most part feminists that Hoff Sommers doesn’t like. She likes to label anti-feminist views she agrees with as “equity feminist”, as if her kind of point of view is feminist. It isn’t.
The Countess is correct to describe this particular iteration of the distinction between first and second wave feminists (today’s academic, activist feminists largely fit into the latter category) as peculiar to Hoff Sommers in Who Stole Feminism, but the irony in her rebuke is that The Countess does not dismiss Hoff Sommers’ distinction, but rather alters the terminology in such a way that she simply excommunicates from “feminism” those who don’t agree with HER understanding of what feminism is—labeling them “anti-feminists” and by default defining actual feminists as those who follow her particular brand of advocacy feminism (whom Hoff Sommers would call “gender feminists,” and whom history would label “second wave feminists”).
I’ve discussed the thinking behind this kind of maneuver at great length here, so I won’t re-cover that ground except to say that I don’t accept the premises that allow for the kinds of distinctions The Countess wishes to draw.
For the record, the distinction Hoff Sommers makes is not dependent on the designations themselves (“equity fem” vs. “gender fem”)—which is why dismissing what is an important and real ideological divide on the grounds that you dislike the terminology used to describe it is a (not so artful) dodge. There is no doubt disagreement exists among self-styled feminists (and I count myself as one) over what feminism as a social and poltical movement is really after, and about the way it goes about achieving those ends; and this disagreement does not simply disappear once the particular brand of activist feminism that today holds sway in the academy and in the theory books has decided to brand dissenting feminists “anti-femist.”
So let’s define our terms in order to proceed more effectively with this debate:
One branch of feminist thought (alternately, equity feminism; first wave; post-feminism; third wave)—the brand to which I and many conservatives and libertarians such as Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young subscribe—believes in equality of opportunity, and argues that activist feminism oftentimes takes on the characteristics of that which it claims to abhor, calling for social remedies based specifically on sex, and coming from a position of institutionalized power proceeding from carefully cultivated victimology; a competing branch of feminist thought (alternately, gender feminism, second wave, activist feminism) claims to believe equality of opportunity, but nevertheless supports a political and social agenda that is far more interested in victim politics, special dispensation for women, “leveling the playing field” through a host of artificial (and, to my mind, socially damaging) means, and equality of outcome.
I asked Trish to provide me with the terms she’d like me (and Hoff Sommers, and Cathy Young, et al) to use in order to proceed with this debate. Her response:
Bah hah hah. He wrote “equity feminist” and “gender feminist”.
That rates two shots for the “anti-feminists drinking game.”
When he writes “equality”, “victim”, or “misandry”, those would be two shots, each.
Folks, get your shot glasses. It’s going to be a bumpy night.
Ooops, he wrote “equality” twice and “victim” once. Another three shots… :D
Which, if I didn’t know better, I’d perhaps suspect that those who go out of their way to tout their “feminism” —who use it as a defining point in their identity—are loathe to discuss its underlying divisions or theoretical assumptions.
So. Are you or are you not interested in a substantive debate? If you aren’t, simply say so—and expect to preach to the choir from here on out. If you are, kindly define your terms and I’ll be happy to work with them—though I’ve already addressed why “anti-feminist” doesn’t work. So if you’re going to continue down that road, I’d ask for a rebuttal to that argument.
Ready? Begin…
****
related
¹To be fair, much of the vitriol was aimed at Allah’s argument; which fine distinction didn’t prevent several of the commenters at the various feminist sites to take shots at yours truly
****
update: Trish has responded with a follow-up post characterizing my call for a clarification of the terms of debate “whining.” An attempt to emasculate me? Well, probably not consciously—though it’s not surprising that someone whose entire persona is caught up in sexual identity politics, and who avoids any defense on the merits of what is essentially an incoherent philosophical position, would retreat to the very kind of sexual power play she claims to abhor.
****
update 2: Amanda Marcotte (whom, it should be noted, I didn’t bring into this; an inveterate attention seeker, she naturally inserted herself)—adds:
Drink your entire drink if you suspect the reason the conservative blogger keeps writing about the same few feminist bloggers is he can’t believe they are both feminist and yet sexually attractive to him.
Well, I haven’t ever seen Trish, so there’s strike one against Marcotte’s thesis; strike two is that in my previous post on the subject, I linked to Marcotte, who is vulgar and shrill and doctrinaire, and so is about as unappetizing to me as a plate of warmed-over shit; third, Marcotte complained in the past that I was linking her too much—and besides, I’m already married to a beautiful women’s studies grad, so I’m not at all surprised feminists can be attractive.
All of which suggests to me that Marcotte, like Trish, is not serious, but rather is more interested in dismissing challenges to her position with easy (and ironically, stereotypical) digs at conservatives than she is in defending the philosophy that animates her worldview and provides her with the only notable bit of her identity.
****
update 3Feministe’s Jill joins in the dismissive fun! SERIOUS THINKERS UNITE!
And remember, among those words that now mark you as an “anti-feminist troll” is “equality.”
Good Christ, the irony is so fucking thick I’m going to need to tunnel through it with a spiked nipple cup.
Drink!
How the hell can you have a substantive discussion when you have to spend 10 discussions to simply arrive at definitions you might be able to use????
Kuhnkat  You’re talking about people, at least some, who are arguing that wrapping yourself in a sack and stumbling through the streets is an empowering act. How much interest do their definitions deserve?
Jeff, you are not holding your breath now are you?
I had a philosophy Professor – real smart guy though a left wing Irishman – who made the point that “egalitarians” and “feminists” are not the same thing. He of course considered himself the latter, but I thought it was a very cogent point. It is a pity that we cannot get rid of all these gender/race advocates and replace them with straight up egalitarians [as I think equity feminists would probably see eye to eye with].
Nope.
Judging by the way Trish responded to me on her site, no, not so much.
Perhaps, as someone over on Feministe noted, I’m simply not smart enough to merit a response from a committed activist feminist. I can’t “understand” their arguments.
Which would come as a shock to the feminist theorists I debated at the School of Crit and Theory at Cornell, or the ones I taught with here in Colorado.
Or my wife, in fact—one of whose majors happened to be women’s studies.
Meh. Whenever it comes down to ‘choosing terms’ in this type of argument, one invariably comes down to one set of terms encoding the horrible motives alleged to the second party by the first, and a second set of terms encoding the horrible motives alleged to the first party by the second. Witness, for example, Pro-choice/Anti-choice vs. Pro-Life/Pro-abortion. I say, fuck it. If your opponent’s so damn keen on painting you up in Snidely Whiplash mustaches, they’ll do it regardless of the code word du jour.
Watch out when they start getting all liquored up—next thing you know you’ll be accused of comment rape. One of the dangers of ‘invading feminist areas of the Internets’ (and in a manner reminiscent of Jshhengis Khan, too.)
Ooh, I’m sorry.
I jest, of course. Anyone who can stay married to Jeff for more than 5 days gets major props in my book.
…which is precisely why I’d like to take away that excuse by coming to an agreement on terms.
But, honestly Jeff, give it up. It is obvious to everyone that you clearly hate women, subconsciously. Better tell your wife now.
*Sigh* I like their game though. Comically dismiss each argument. This Trish creature clearly is not interested in debate with an “anti-feminist” like yourself. Especially considering she probably shares Alon Levy’s paranoid and childish worldview…
Jeff,
I love how some bloggers dismiss your sound arguments by just being “flip” and making a joke out of it. Thereby avoiding substantial discussion. (the first clue that they have lost the argument)
But the irony is that she states earlier that she is growing tired of not having substantial discussions. Perhaps this is because she never involves herself in one?
But that would take away their advantage… not that I would describe them with anything so Machiavellian… or anything requiring such brainpower. More, it would require them to engage you as a logical creature. Why should they do the DIFFICULT thing? They’re WOMYN!
“Not smart enough” in this context usually precedes some pig-latin level expectoration of meaningless academe jargonese which is supposed to convince you that your opponent does not make any sense because he or she is actually privy to the most arcane mysteries of the universe, as opposed to simply dolling up simplistic ideas in extra syllables.
Perhaps they’d respect you more if you combed over your responses and separated out a few of your prefixes with parentheses–a (re) here, a (de) there. That’s especially popular among bloviating arts students these days–it seems to give them the impression that the many, many extra years of college their parents paid for actually taught them a skill.
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That’s not funny!
Jeff, part of the difficulty may have something to do with the way commenters are perceived. We all like to have a hee-haw good time with your doses of substantive writing. Some folks might have a hard time separating our raucous riffing from the more serious comments.
Telling when we’re “just kidding” and when we’re being serious is probably more difficult when the topic has something of a religious nature. Sarcasm about religion is often perceived as blasphemy. To some, there is no need for a substantive response to someone who so obviously associates with blasphemers.
Echoing Gabriel here, I think there’s also (for me at least) a level of disgust at engaging with, for example, someone like Phoenician, who cavalierly dismisses real-world concerns about real-world flesh-and-blood American soldiers in combat as “sentimentality” – on the heels of comparing them to Soviet, not to mention SS and Wehrmacht troops. Anyone that mired in a combination of cartoonish stereotypes and pathology has their tinfoil hat on so tight it ain’t comin’ off, not ever. One walks away or risks being drawn into their delusional spiral.
However, you’ve given some displayers of bad faith argumentation a real “put up or shut up” moment here, and I for one will be interested to see if any of them have the guts to rise to your challenge.
Irrelevant. Chris Clarke is a nitwit, yet I don’t judge Feministe by the presence of such nitwits. This is the internet, dangit. Any blogster that judges a site based on comments clearly doesn’t “get” the internet.
egregious sexist comment:
—
Jeff wants to deny women their
perogative of changing their mind.
Bastard.
—
Trish’s response was to say I’m “whining.” She then links to an Allah comment that for the SECOND TIME she attributes to me to prove that conservatives lump all feminist together.
The irony just keeps piling up over there, I’d say…
Me, I love feminists. Especially the stupid ones with big tits and a tight butt.
Oh, I agree that Jeff (and Allah) should only have to answer for their own writings. I thought it went without saying that individuals are only responsible for what they do volitionally.
I’m not saying that Jeff’s blog-writing critics are holding him responsible for our comments (though, some of their commenters have done that), but that their perception of Jeff is warped by his association with us. Kind of a “lay down with dogs” situation.
I’m also saying that the problem is made worse when: 1) the topic has a religious nature; 2) the critics believe they are being made fun of (again because of a blurring between Jeff and us); and 3) the critics believe the world is already set against them.
Regarding point #3, keep in mind that the kind of feminism these folks believe in requires that system-wide, pervasive discrimination and oppression exists against women (and feminism). A little defensiveness from them is, therefore, not surprising.
SEXIST!
From the Countess’ new drinking game post:
“they invade comments sections in feminist areas on the Internets.”
How’s that for an example of my point #3 above? She has to have a safe zone on the internet where the all-powerful patriarchy can’t come in and oppress her.
While I would never begrudge a person their personal space, I think that an open comment section is not a good example of personal space.
Get your man-pixels off my cyber-uterus!
tw: boys will be boys…
Jeff, you display patience to a degree that I know I’m not capable of. “Trish”, in my estimation, is a total write-off, as in “see ya, babe, I’ve got some shit to do.” I’m not sure how you do it, but I suppose someone has to.
Lauren deleted my comment on the love letter thread.
What is is about me? First AltHouse, now Feministe.
Here’s what i said, for posterity–
a quote from a guy friend–
and i went on to say that feminists aren’t needed here in america, they’re dinosaurs. We have good women’s rights here.
I went on to propose that we export our excess feminists to societies where they are neccessary.
I also proposed we send Jill and Lauren to Saud, where Lauren can expound on her thesis that “wearing the hijab is a feminist act.”
Sorry about using the sh** word, but hey, my friends a bangladeshi and a brahmin, and he knows about caste.
Here is a list of terms of commonly accepted forms of feminism. I would argue that some of them no longer or never existed. I would most likely be considered a liberal feminist.
Do note that Hoff-Summers conveniently made up these terms to set up a false binary between her forms of feminism. As (professional) “equity” feminists almost never have anything kind to say about the feminist movement post-Roe, I don’t think it is a stretch to call them anti-feminists whatsoever.
Why is that? Why not call yourself “anti-feminists”?
Hmmmm.
The delegation from Outer Far Klatchistan refuse to continue deliberations until this body has fully determined the size of the table to be used during discussions.
After which this body can then tackle the serious question of the *shape* of said table.
Thank you.
Also? I don’t want a link. I want terms that we can agree to use. If you prefer “liberal feminists” and “anti-feminists” than I ask that you respond to my post re: anti-feminism linked above.
But Jeff, all you’ve effectively done is turned it around and asked Trish to come up with terms to fit your definition of two branches of feminism, one of which you’ve defined positively and one negatively. I seriously doubt, though, that Trish believes that there is a major branch of feminism that “nevertheless supports a political and social agenda that is far more interested in victim politics, [and] special dispensation for women…” or supports “equality of outcome”. One might make an argument that if there were equality of opportunity, you would expect over time to see equality of outcome and, therefore, reason backwards that a lack of equality of outcome is evidence of equality of opportunity. I don’t know, however, if Trish would make that argument. I would not. Not without a much greater understanding of human behavior than we have today. Perhaps if you were to start a discussion regarding the benefits/detriments of leveling the playing field via a host of artificial means or the meaning of gender roles in society you might be able to have a substantive debate with her. I don’t know.
BTW, in fairness, Trish’s original post was directed at Allah’s comment. Not for nothing, but when someone says things like “As we’ve discussed here before, nearly every argument that comes out of the feminist camp depends on bad-faith assumptions about their opponents’ motives”, that Lauren’s post bugged the shit out of him because of examples of things that women who were not Lauren did, or coming up with a “feminist taxonomy of good faith”, I think it’s reasonable to construe him as not a big fan of the feminism (aka an anti-feminist). Then Alon Levy brought you up re: the “equity” and “gender” feminist designations; Trish made a snarky comment about them, and you came in with your two designations of feminism, one positive and one negative. That doesn’t exactly come across as a big call for substantive debate. Maybe sincerely asking Trish why she doesn’t think Hoff Sommers is a feminist would have been more successful; maybe not. You didn’t, however, do anything substantially different than that of which you accused Trish.
Lastly, she did not attribute Allah’s comment to you the first time. She never mentioned your name at all until you addressed her directly in the comments. In the second post, she does wrongly attribute it to you. Not sure if it’s a mistake in attribution or she just quickly did a copy and paste and forgot to remove the comment number or entry number from the URL.
Hmmm.
Because righteousness is always in the eye of the beholder. It wouldn’t do to enter into a debate having admitted a negative position. The negative position must always be the one defended by the other side.
Of course doing so also precludes an neutral definition of terms as it’s difficult to demonize the opposition if they refuse to accept the title of “Evil Bastards”.
Not true. I have defined terms as I’ve used them, and noted that if they are not amenable to describing what is clearly a divide within feminism, I’m open to using whatever terms work—so that the debate doesn’t get artifically hung up on terminology.
If one did, one would have to show that there has not been progress—or that it is discrimination of some sort that is the cause of the disparity—which I think would be a losing proposition. Which is why we hear a lot of talk about “unconscious” sexism, etc.
Lesley, how does this fit in with what you’ve posted above?
Hmmmm.
Except perhaps for one very important and specific difference. Jeff asked for a neutral definition of terms, he didn’t dictate them.
*shrug*
Jeff, the point of me posting the link I did above is to point out there are many ideological divides within the feminist movement.
Also, I’m curious what other feminist works you are familiar with aside from Hoff-Summers. That might give us a starting point.
Playah Grrl, I don’t know what Jill’s up to, but I didn’t get home until about thirty minutes ago, at which point I did delete your comment. Why? Because I don’t play my server to host your brand of stupidity. Surely you have something better than “let’s send Jill and Lauren to Saud”—the cherry on top, your reading comprehension on my first post. Choice.
Well, after perusing Lauren’s helpful list and description of commonly accepted feminist terms, she may be right.
For example, I felt my consciousness raising just reading about this pro-sex feminism. And combined with the Amazon feminism? I had no idea feminism could be so philosophicaly engorging.
Some pictures accompanying the site might help, however, as long as, you know…
no fat chicks.
Hmmm.
You mean like when more women than men are admitted to colleges all across America, as is happening now?
Frankly, and this is my opinion only, there are a few feminist that believe in equal opportunities but that the outcome depends on individual achievement. Then there’s a larger body of the other sort that believe that men must adopt a subordinate position and that women, by virtue of being women, are by definition a better gender.
Jeff,
For what it’s worth, that little comment of mine was supposed to be a joke, a dud attempt to make a play on words. That I left insufficient indications of the intended tone is my failing.
No problem JDC.
Lauren —
I come from the field of English, so I’m most read in feminist theory where it overlaps with lit crit. But you can start with mid 19th century up through through the Kristevas, the Showalters, the Cixous—the crossover into Queer theory with Gayle Rubin and Eve Sedgewick, onward to Butler, Jacqueline Rose, Lee Edelman, Chodorow, Gilligan… There are others, of course, but I’m going off the top of my head here while I watch the end of the Dallas / Kansas City game.
Incidentally, the reason I fixate on this particular divide within feminism is because to me it is a battle for the soul of feminism itself—and it is the only division that I’m aware of wherein the proponents on one side are answered by being excommunicated as “anti-feminists.”
The mud you wish to hold belongs to the semioticians. However formed or flung, it cannot fail to disguise the fact that the last feminist died in 1797 (Wolstonecraft).
Late-19th century activism, weakly echoed on today’s keyboards, is in no wise ‘feminism’. Being a relative absolute, Self cannot be defined as an absolutely relative proposition, let alone as ‘a purified other’.
There is no more to understand than the proposed drinking game.
Forgot about Mary. Read her “Vindication of the Rights of Women,” too. And I was sticking roughly to the canon—though you can make the case for St Theresa of Avila and feministic mystical theology, etc—or the women in Lysistrata, and on and on.
“One might make an argument that if there were equality of opportunity, you would expect over time to see equality of outcome and, therefore, reason backwards that a lack of equality of outcome is evidence of equality of opportunity.”
Only if you take it as a given that outside forces “One might make an argument that if there were equality of opportunity, you would expect over time to see equality of outcome and, therefore, reason backwards that a lack of equality of outcome is evidence of equality of opportunity.”
Only if you take it as a given that outside forces (opportunity in this case) are the only forces at work in shaping outcome.
Those on the left believe with an almost religious fervor that humans are born as raw clay which a “progressive” society may form into the perfect “New Man” (to quote the Soviet version). If the resulting product is defective, the _system_ must be at fault. What they fail to consider (and often regard as heresy) is that the defect may be in Mankind itself.
Witness the recent outburst at Harvard when it was suggested that there are real and measurable gender differences. One feminist practically swooned at the very suggestion and almost had the offending brute fired for his blasphemy against feminist orthodoxy!
Conservatives have always believed in the concept of human nature, and in a case of cosmic irony, evolutionary science backs this up.
This clash of beliefs on the nature of “human nature†is at the heart of many left vs. right conflicts.
Wow. I never knew there were so many different sects of feminism. Now I just need to decide which one is the best for me to get behind.
My High School Football coach discusses feminism—“I’m telling you son, never trust anything that can bleed for four days and not die.”
This is the heart of the problem. Jeff believes that there is a form of feminism which has as its ultimate goal legal equality. Some of Jeff’s critics simply believe that idea is not feminism.
I think that Jeff’s call for some definition is more of a call for a discussion of whether or not equity feminism exists. Clearly, some of Jeff’s critics think it does not. Let’s see some arguments.
The response to Jeff’s call may be so mixed because, in some eyes, Jeff has already exhibited his bad faith. Keep in mind that these folks believe there is a hidden cultural network between individuals, companies, organizations, and societal institutions which seeks to control women. Jeff, by uttering the phrase “equity feminism” has already indicated that he does not believe in the patriarchy.
So instead of a debate about whether equity feminism is a kind of feminism, we get non-serious drinking games.
If that’s the case, Gabriel, it’s incumbent upon those who wish “feminism” to be something other than a quest for equal opportunity—which includes a conscious effort to avoid discriminating on the basis of sex—to discuss how such an ideal is not, in fact, feminism.
For what it’s worth I already reacted to a “liberal feminists” definition of feminism here.
That’s just what I’m sayin’, Jeff.
And, for what it’s worth, I was saying “Amen, yo!” to your other posts on feminism and identity. Maybe you should put a “Vote for Me” link in some of those posts.
That was as clear as mud. What I meant was you should have told us to vote in some serious posts. Though, I’d be irritated at being put in the “Comics” section, too.
I dunno Jeff. Trying to extract a definition of feminism from these people is bound to be an impossible task given the fact we can’t get them to distinguish between electrodes on genitals and panties on heads as a definiton of torture.
Like blood from a stone, I’d say…
Lauren, this is what you said–
my reading comprehension is not at fault. I merely suggested we don’t need feminmists in the US, and you should go where you are needed. Like Saud.
And that your touting the wearing of the hijab as a feminist act is no different from teenage girls in Utah being coerced into plural marriage thru their religion.
Well, I keep hearing about how “conservatives” don’t really want to debate these issues—that all they want is to control the uterus and to return to the halcyon days of patriarchal control over women.
Which is of course absurd in the majority of cases, and is quite definitely absurd in my case.
But be that as it may: I am willing to have the debate. So if you run a feminist site and you put up posts calling out conservatives for their treatment of feminist issues, you should be prepared to deal with the issues on the merits when presented with the opportunity to do so.
“Merits”? That’s a SEXIST concept, isn’t it?
TW: “million”, as in how many of ‘em I’ve got.
That’s not unreasonable, but I tend to think their perception is warped just BECAUSE he disagrees with them, and thus does not see the truth of THE PATRIARCHY (OH NOES), moreso than anything else. The commenters might push it a bit farther, but I like to think they go into this with little more than Jeff’s writings and their own mental illnesses or what not.
Eh,
Jeff you’ve already spent far more brain power than I ever would on the subject.
All I’d want to know is what do they look like and what are they wearing as they’re writing all this stuff?
Lauren, i have a question for you. Why are feminists more interested in ragging on Larry Summers who was only speaking the scientific truth, than on going someplace where women are truly oppressed? Your hijab post was a slap in the face to the millions of women that are forced to cover on pain of real punishment.
Have you ever been discriminated against? I never have. I’ve been discrimated for. And I’ve seen women play the gender card when they got a bad PAR (Performance Appraisal Review), or didn’t get the raise or promotion they thought they should have. And we all knew they sucked at what they were doing and didn’t derserve any better.
It’s over, babe. We’re liberated.
You dismissed.
Fine, Jeff, then I misunderstood what you were asking. It seemed to me that what you were saying was effectively “here are two designations of feminism; now tell me what you want to call them.” If what you were actually saying was “Here are two major branches of feminism as I see them; now tell me how you see them”, then, yes, I was wrong and that’s a very different question. Although I still think that going in there with one positive designation of feminism that applies to you and one negative that applies to your opponent isn’t perhaps the most effective way to start a substantive debate. I’m just sayin’.
Here’s a question. Is legal equality the exact same thing as equality of opportunity? I’m not sure that it is. For example, it is perfectly legal for men to be stay-at-home fathers. However, the societal pressure not to is great enough that I wouldn’t say that men have the same effective opportunity to be stay-at-home parents as women do. Personally, I think it is worthwhile to give men the same effective opportunity as women in that venue, regardless of how many would ever choose it. Ditto for venues in which women do not have the same effective opportunity as men. Now I’m not denying that there are innate differences between men and women, so please no one raise that strawman. Given my physique, there are a number of jobs I would not qualify for. That’s fine. Men with my physique would not qualify for them either, but there are more men who would qualify than women. But if women who do qualify are subject to harassment designed to make them so miserable that they will leave, they do not have the same effective opportunity as men even if it is legal. Do you think it is a worthwhile goal to work towards a culture where the effective opportunity is equal, not just the legal opportunity? I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about equality of outcome here.
As for equality of outcome, I hope no one is actually expecting me to further expound upon the hypothetical argument I put forth. I did explicitly state that I would not make that argument, so I’m certainly not going to spend any time defending it.
The next question is what is the role of government in ensuring effective equality of opportunity. Personally, I think the only role of the government is to ensure legal equality. Outside of that, it’s up to us to work through the private sector to get anything above and beyond that. There are certainly feminists who would disagree with me. Anyone should feel free to have a discussion regarding a more expanded role for government with any of them. But not with me.
One more thing Lauren–we have achieved parity. More than that, we’re more than equal! There are more of us, we are not a minority. We have that wonderful irreproduceable (well, for now) uterus, and even if the j-womb happens, we have the eggs!
More women are entering college than men.
We live longer.
We can take more heat, more pain, more cold and more rads than the XY.
If there is a disparity in wages, it is because many women do leave the workforce and become stay-at-home moms. I plan on that!
We don’t NEED feminism here–go someplace where they do, or at least acknowledge the fact, and don’t write stupid posts about how empowering the hijab is, or SHADDAP!
Via Pandagon: “Drink your entire drink if you suspect the reason the conservative blogger keeps writing about the same few feminist bloggers is he can’t believe they are both feminist and yet sexually attractive to him.”
Are these women really representative of the upper levels of modern feminist thought? Because if so… Bwah ha ha hah hah ah ah!
Game over.
Well, you’re talking to somebody who gave up teaching to be a stay at home dad.
To answer your question, though, yes, of course the goal is worthwhile. But you can’t legislate away every bit of latent or unconscious discrimination—and in fact, as I’ve argued when the topic was race, to constantly “police” such things, particularly through remedies that treat men and women differently (harrassment, etc, only makes matters worse—in that doing so continually highlights the differences rather than the similarities between the sexes in the context of completing a specific task.
On your second question, I’m with you. And I think that is the foundational point of feminists like Young, et al: that the conditions are there, and that feminism is being hurt by blowback resulting from legislative overreach based on ideas that women deserve special dispensations.
I was going to insert something crass and superficial, here, along the lines of “…a feminist can’t talk if her mouth is full of something…” but that would be sexist of me, and contrary to the highbrow tone of this discussion.
I suspect the situation is common enough that it would surprise Lesley.
It seems to me that what she wants is not to have things to be possible, but to have them be easy. The fact that there are “societal pressures” for or against doing something doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Getting some crap because you’re kinda butch and the other firefighters don’t accept you? You’re not gonna change anybody’s mind by quitting and filing a lawsuit.
How ironic that you anti-Feminist radical reichwing bloggers march in clockwork-perfect lockstep to the mandate of your glorious leader in the whitehouse, a “man” named george BUSH. I’m sure the realization will make you scream in horror–that is, if you weren’t so stupid you think strawberries are made from actual straw. I don’t know what I despise the most about you evil Nazi scumbag assholes: the fact that you see everything in farcical black-and-white absolutes, or the fact that you’re just JEALOUS of my huge pendulous BREASTS. Not that I’d want to go out with a stupid farty old man like you in the first place, JOHN DERBYSHIRE.
…
(call me)
So this would be the wrong time to quote George Carlin’s line on feminists?
I used to visit these sites to get some idea about what the current feminist thinking looked like (it being a couple years now since I had these debates in the academy); what I’ve learned today is that current feminist thinking is to belittle those who would challenge the assumptions that underlie their thinking. They’ve become what they set out to combat. They are defenders of an academic orthodoxy, which means that they have taken to defending the ideological status quo.
Drink!
NSS. Of course it doesn’t make things impossible. If you’d actually like to discuss something I believe, let me know.
Meh.
Sad, isn’t it. The funny thing is, this situation is a direct result of their success. If it were still hard for women to make a living/get into college/whatever, they wouldn’t have to keep refining their grievances to the point of incoherence.
I almost forgot that this hoedown was started by the “empowering hijab” toss-off from les femmes. From my Iraq experiences, the hijab is really empowering, especially when a little happy girl from the day before his now swathed in that slave-scarf. Very uplifting [/sarc]. All the educated Iraqis I hung with said that the hijab was an old custom, and some of their countrymen couldn’t let stupid traditions die. Fair enough, but what’s the excuse for the gals at Feministe? My guess: no real oppression to fight against, so they cannibalize society in a search for validation of their continued existence. Just a guess.
And so the most cartoonish of the cartoon feminist bloggers remains true to form, responding to criticism that she’s filthy with bad-faith assumptions by resorting to a bad-faith assumption. That’s even better than Jill, who never met a critique of “the patriarchy” that she didn’t like, complaining in the comments here last night about political oversimplifications.
My weekend CLE program is finally done, so I have time at last to give Lauren the flaming she richly deserves for yesterday’s post. But I’m not going to, for two reasons. First, I actually do respect Lauren, the tone of my comments on her hijab post notwithstanding. That’s not to say that post wasn’t shitty—it was—but when she says that it wasn’t fair of me to lump her in with Jill and (especially) Marcotte, I have to concede that she has a point. She’s been far more scrupulous than either of them in not attributing ulterior motives to her opponents, and I should have acknowledged that. On the other hand, if she has a problem with Marcotte’s parade of ulterior motives, you’d never know it from reading Feministe. Whether it’s because she likes Amanda too much personally to lay her out or whether she secretly agrees with all the “patriarchy” bullshit but doesn’t want to put herself on the line for it, I don’t know. But let me tell you: when smart, sane women like Lauren let that stuff go unchecked, they don’t do feminism any fucking favors. It’s like conservatives who look the other way when the holy rollers try to push intelligent design into science classes. If you don’t take the crazies out to the woodshed when they act up, don’t be surprised when people start to think you’re one of them. That’s how oversimplifications start.
The other reason I don’t want to start flaming is because Jeff is trying to get a serious discussion going here and I don’t want to derail that with another nuclear strike. In fact, I apologize for having dragged Jeff into this in the first place. As I said to him earlier this evening, he’s always been generous in allowing me (and others) to post in the comments here, and it’s very much appreciated. I feel guilty that, for his trouble, he ended up with his own little Silly Symphony of cartoon characters squawking at him about being “anti-feminist” or, even stupider, acting as my “mouthpiece.” I’d hasten to remind the loony ‘toons that this whole thing started when I (and Jeff, much more tactfully) slammed Lauren for being insufficiently strident in her feminist reading of the hijab. But then we’re just two white dudes, so, per the taxonomy, how credible are we really?
With that I’ll bow out, as the subject seems to have turned to feminist literature and I’m way out of my depth in that area. If anyone wants to continue the flame war, though (and assuming Jeff doesn’t mind it happening here), by all means, light ‘em up.
[…] what I’ve learned today is that current feminist thinking is to belittle those who would challenge the assumptions that underlie their thinking
You and I are the same age, and we read and heard all the same things back in our academic days, yet I don’t remember the “debate” ever being any different. The genito-reductive slur has been the heart of feminist “argument” for our entire lifetimes. Everything else is just veils [resisting…Derrida] to be stripped if the conversation turns the wrong wayâ€â€as we’ve seen here…again. Just like always.
I know it didn’t used to be like this, but I wasn’t alive then, and neither were you. For us, there’s never been any point in talking. So whence the generosity? I believe you really don’t want these jerks to fuck you, so I’m baffled. (Is it because your wife isn’t a hateful lunatic, and you’re projecting her sanity onto people who don’t deserve it?)
Look This “settling on definitions” is like arguing classifications of antisemitism with Farrakhan. What for? You know what he thinks of you. You can’t refine it out of his language. That’s not where it lives.
The newest squawker is BitchPhD, who has accused me of “indicting her character” during the Deignan dustup.
Patently false, of course—but then one suspects this lass has a rather large reservoir of potential outrages.
Hmmm.
Me?
I’m delicious and naked.
We are talking about me right?
Inwit —
Yes, I believe there are feminists who have been sold a bill of goods by the second-wave academic orthodoxy and who can be reasoned with. My wife is astute—and several of my good friends teach lit from a feminist perspective—so I know these discussions can be had and inroads can be made.
And if not, at least I can lay the arguments out for others who might discover them and be swayed. Which is important, because too much of our public policy has been corrupted when bad programs are accepted by good people who just want to do what’s best, but who have bought the party line from the “experts.”
Thank you for the explanation, Allah. I found your comment unusually angry considering the tone of my original post.
The whole post on the hijab thing was to ponder one thing (and what playah grrl, et al, seem not to have realized is that I came to no conclusion per my questions, i.e. “consider”): What happens when we remove a symbol of subjugation from its usual contructs and put it in a situation where it potentially becomes a symbol of personal empowerment? Does it become empowerment for everyone who wears it? Of course not. But what wonderment.
I really was impressed by the guts it took for this girl to stand up to and educate her peers considering the school’s environment regarding non-white, non-Christian folks. Does that change my mind about hijab in general? In misogynist Muslim states? Not really.
The important thing to remember is that there are plenty of women in these Muslim states who are changing that environment for themselves. Of course we can help, of course we can disagree, but we do them little favor by a) not considering their fight, and b) dismissing them altogether. If we can all agree that women in the Middle East (in this discussion) are in need of greater access to opportunity, I think it will do us well to consider all the possibilities even if we arrive at the same conclusions as before. Additionally, many of these women consider themselves Muslim feminist thinkers and it is important to think of their fight in the context of their religious beliefs. Many of them will continue to wear hijab. Several people are discussing these issues in the comments to my original post and your (civil) thoughts are welcome there.
Re: Jeff’s post on feminism
Jeff, I understand you’re attempting to have a discussion on feminist labels and I think it’s an important one to have. I would argue that equity feminism did not exist until Hoff-Summers effectively began it as a real movement. However, now that equity/individualist feminists exist within their own movement, that particular movement labels all feminists that don’t agree with ifeminism as “gender” feminists, and “gender feminism” exists as epithet alone. It will be very diffictul for you to have a discussion with contemporary feminists when you begin the discussion by labeling us with this epithet.
Finally, for everyone else, several of the examples at the wikipedia site are literary in nature, and are not indicative of actual people in the actual movement today. The primary active feminist groups of today would fall under ifeminism (equity/individualist feminism, as you all and Hoff-Summers call it), liberal feminism, radical feminism, eco-feminism, and anarcho-feminism, listed in order (if you’re down with political binaries) from most conservative to most liberal. Historically, most feminists would fall under the category of liberal feminists. Ifeminism would include those who believe that women deserve equality, but for the most part have equal or greater access to all opportunities (in the West, I assume).
Hmmm.
and
Now that’s funny. The use of the word “effective” is merely a ploy. Agree with her and she’ll use that phrase like a cudgel because “effective” is whatever she wants to define it as. No matter what concessions are made. No matter what programs are enacted. Their “effectiveness” will always be in question, always will be challenged and always found wanting.
That’s not a serious position. It’s a fraud.
No, that you cannot. Which is why I think we need to work through the private sector to ameliorate its effects. The market is a wonderful mechanism.
Hmm. I’m not sure the conditions really are there just yet. I still think there’s a fair amount of ingrained sexism that works against women and men. But I won’t pretend to have a familiarity with the writings of Young. I haven’t read her, so I certainly am in no position to offer an analysis of her arguments. FWIW, my education through undergrad was very classical in nature and my MBA is in finance. So if anyone really wants to discuss Dante’s Paradiso or Macaulay duration… well, both would be boring as hell.
Is there ever a wrong time to quote George Carlin?
I’m actually not looking to have a debate on labels. I’m asking us to choose something that we can all use in order to get beyond labels. The list of labels you cite, in fact, shows how fruitless it is to use labels, because they change over the years.
Which, too, is Hoff-Sommers’ point: equity feminism didn’t exist precisely because it was once feminism itself—an appeal to equality of the sexes and equality of opportunity based on that assumption. The idea behind Who Stole Feminism is that feminism itself had been usurped by those who would bracket out the kind of traditional feminist thought that concentrates on equality of opportunity and equality of the sexes, exchanging it for an ideological system that seeks to shape society to match its peculiar beliefs about gender, competition, etc. etc.
Again, this is why I asked the question. If you don’t like “gender feminist” and it’s going to throttle progress in the debate, call yourselves what you’d like. Is “anti-identity feminists” better?
Jeff, i apolo for any untoward comments about “your pal Lauren”, but i would just like so much to give the “feminists” my perspective.
I’m a mathematician, and a working grrl. I hate feminists, pretty uniformly. Once a year I have to go to “sexual harassment training”. Because i work for a defns con. Yes, you have to be trained to recognize it. Have you ever sat through that? Do you know the definition of sexual harrassment? It is when one of the guys i work with “annoys me”. WTF? Like, he doesn’t ever
Frankly, I’d have to read Hoff-Summers’ book before I could answer your questions in good faith. I’ll borrow it from my father (who would probably agree with you more than I can fathom) and get back to you.
But again, use of “gender feminist” won’t help you unless you’re only interested in engaging ifeminist responses. You won’t get the reasoned answers you’re looking for if you start with an anti-feminist slant. If anything, this is less of an argument about labels as much as the usual liberal versus conservative divide that you’re used to, only this time within the feminist subgroups. And we know how productive that is.
Frankly, i don’t think the debate should be over terminology.
Why not this question–Do we need feminism in America any more? At all?
Off topic, but this struck me kinda funny:
Yeah? Well I know a certain SEA MONKEY KING who wouldn’t find me at all “reasonable.”
Anyway, because it’s clear the city isn’t big enough for the both of us, I’m going to have to hunt down this pissant hump and gut him with a big sharp conservative knife, then frolic and dance about amid his spilled entrails like a beautiful young wiccan in the throes of livid ecstasy.
Dude, I said no feminist epithets. Sexist.
I’m going to guess that this, right here, would be Lauren’s problem with it–because you’re asking her to accept this on its face, to start from this premise, and I doubt that she will, though I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
I’m saying this because I think Lauren’s a much more liberal feminist than I’d ever qualify to be, yet I know I personally have an instantaneous negative reaction to seeing that work cited. Why? Because it’s a favorite of those who are demonstrably antifeminist. I mean the kind of people who, when confronted with studies and data refuting their points, retreat into “those studies are all biased.” Against men, of course. Studies can be biased, sure, but only so much. I’m not talking about a reasonable disputation of the methodology of the study, I’m talking about dismissing the entire thing because it doesn’t fit in with the person’s “white Christian males are the biggest victims nowadays” argument.
That book’s got bad mojo. It gets cited way too often by those whose chief motivation is not to debate and discuss, but to get feminists to shut up and go away. I’m not saying that’s your motivation. I’m saying that Hoff-Summers can assert that her faction are the “real” feminists in the same way the Reform Party can assert that they’re the “real” conservatives or the Green Party can assert they’re the “real” progressives–none of it matters if you don’t accept these premises to start with.
I hope you two get some civil dialogue going; I’d be interested in it, if only because I’m still not certain where I fit on the spectrum of feminism. It would help immensely if commenters on both sides would quit rushing to cheerleader tryouts every time this stuff come up. And since I’ve been as guilty of that as anybody. I hereby vow to lay down the pom-poms.
And drink.
Lesley:
“Although I still think that going in there with one positive designation of feminism that applies to you and one negative that applies to your opponent isn’t perhaps the most effective way to start a substantive debate. “
Butch up a little. That’s why there ARE debates. Does anyone go into a debate thinking they are wrong and their opponent is right? What the hell would there be TO debate?
That’s the thing, Ilyka – I didn’t bring up Hoff-Sommers, just borrowed some of her terminology because I’m not sure what terms those in The Countess camp wish to assign to particular ideas about feminism (aside from the dismissive “anti-feminist” label, which I dealt with earlier). For what it’s worth, I’ve tried to use other labels as well—including second wave vs. post-feminsts, etc.—in order to overcome this stumbling block.
The point is, I don’t care what we call the competing impulses between those who believe feminism to be about equality of the sexes (translated into equality of opportunity for the sexes), and those who see feminism as something more akin to a political lobbying group for a variety of women-centric issues (very broadly defined). Just so long as we can acknowledge them in some way, by some designation, so that we can move the debate forward.
The contemporary feminist movement is a mixture of both and more, though those sub groups I mentioned before usually differ in their academic activities, activist activities, and lobbying activities, AND in their approach to each, thus the terminology does make a difference when addressing a feminist audience.
Ilyka, you got it right there. I don’t accept Hoff-Summers’ premise at all, but I also need to read the whole book so I can make a more complete argument why it is that she is disingenuous in her argument. At this point I’ve only read excerpts in The Limbaugh Letter.
Also, I fantastic feminist writer who could address your comments is Barry at Alas, A Blog. He is a very well-reasoned and tempered thinker who, I believe, is quite familiar with Hoff-Summers.
Re: terminology
Consider it a rhetorical method on your part.
Excuse the typos. I’m tired as hell and going to bed.
OHMIGOD!!!!
I am over 50 years old and have managed to remain mostly IGNORANT of ths sh*t. That Wikipedai entry is a mind blower. I am going to be laughing for days about this!!!
Who could believe that there are so many people who are so anally retentive that they could spend so much time on pure SH*T!!!!!
Of course thaere are probably a few real ISSUES buried in there somewhere, but, how do you find them NOW!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
It’s starting to hurt
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAGGHUURGHFGLUCKhACKCOUGHUGGHHGhhhhh…
Of course, but at least one part of the modern feminist movement feels that pushing back against another more activist part is their contribution to feminism – the thought being that overreach on the part of particular schools of feminism actually damage the movement, in the same way, say, race hustlers damage the quest for a color blind society.
I’m glad people follow the links I put in my posts.
This link, for instance, addresses “anti-feminism,” specifically as it was offered by Barry to describe Cathy Young.
And as I’ve noted, I’m very very well read on the theory. I just can’t seem to please people with the labels.
I’m so going to bed after this.
Show me one political group that doesn’t have inter-group disagreements about how best to enact the group philosophy. These are the divides and, yes, they have real labels that don’t come from anti-feminist authors endorsed by Rush “feminazi” Limbaugh.
Yeah, I didn’t follow the link. My bad. But I did read the argument when it occurred and think Barry’s point stands. I find Young a reasonable thinker and writer, but I don’t believe I’d call her a feminist by today’s understanding of the word, especially considering her views on feminism.
Also, remember that Hoff-Summers was part of the concerted effort by conservative groups to smear the name of feminism, and did so quite successfully as we see here. Even I will admit to finding some of the fringe feminist movement frivolous or offensive, but the primary goals of feminism still stand. Gender equality, end stop.
Stop using Hoff-Sommers as an boogeywoman—or even better, stop demonizing her because of who endorses her—at least until you’ve read the book.
Uh, well, that’s my point. And yet, rather than deal with the particular inter-group disagreement I describe, you have certain groups who are vying for control over the term “feminism” excommunicating those feminists who believe that the orthodoxy of the current feminist movement is damaging the goal of “gender equality, end stop” by pushing an agenda that tries to affect “gender equality, end stop” in anti-liberal ways. They do this by labeling them “anti-feminists.”
This is the verbal equivalent of throwing oreos at Michael Steele. Only here I suppose you’d throw, I don’t know… Ru Paul, maybe?
Final note. In “Defining the Terms” (and in this post) you dismiss Amp’s feminist terms and adopt Hoff-Summers’ anti-feminist terms in defense of Young, “and so what we are really seeing here is an attempt by [’equity’] feminists to control the feminist label and excommunicate those who refuse to adhere to a particular narrative and a particular political strategy for the women’s movement.”
Or in this case, for a movement that seeks to dismiss feminism altogether. Hence the inability to get past terminology.
My captcha word below is “mother,” as in “mother fucking christ I HAVE to go to bed.”
Immaterial. Replace the terms you don’t like with any of your own choosing, provided you know that it means what I’ve described above. I’ll gladly use it.
Unless it’s “anti-feminist.” Because I don’t accept that as a fair or accurate designation.
Lauren,
Just to clarify, it seems that the delineation Jeff is attempting here is that, irrespective of Hoff-Summer’s lexicon, that there are two competing narratives:
One, which no matter what it’s called, seeks equality of opportunity so that no woman would be denied a job on the basis of her gender.
The other decries that this “opportunity” will never avail itself because our culture is so infused with inchoate discrimination of women that such opportunities can never, in truth, became fact; that, even if a woman heads Amex or becomes Secretary of State that such achievements do not signify anything more than a token sacrifice, and that equality of opportunity for women will be challenged on every level, is that right? (I am intentionally omitting separatist and other ethnic as well as lesbian feminism for lack of space.)
Then we are left with three issues:
1) discrimination at the first level of job attainment is tainted by sexism.
Obviously, discrimination laws already exist to combat such behavior.
2)equality of opportunity cannot be achieved in later promotions in the same job.
See #1
3) It’s neccessary to change the viewpoints of the culture at large in order to destroy “institutional” sexism; that which forecloses opportunities for women although we can’t identify the exact toll of this loss or gauge how women have been dispossessed by it.
Naive, impossible and adolescent. Look around.
Look at what feminism has achieved. There is no pragmatic point to this, and no victory to be achieved.
You have won. Look elsewhere for your fight.
You remind me of those Japanese soldiers stranded on a Pacific island who never realized that the war was over.
It is.
You won.
Move on.
I’ve written a three-part post about why I think most feminists have trouble accepting the “equity vs gender” division conservatives talk about; here’s part one, here’s part two, and here’s part three. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, part three is the most important bit. It’s not that I don’t like the terminology; it’s that I think the division Hoff Sommers has made is substantially mistaken, regardless of terminology.
What’s most striking to me about, say, Cathy Young’s feminism is that she thinks we’re past the need for feminism, at least in the USA. So referring to Cathy, Hoff-Sommers, McElroy and others as “post-feminists,” as you suggest, seems very apt. Plus, since you suggested the term, I presume it’s one that you don’t find to be a put-down.
As for the rest of us, there is no one school of feminism that unites me, Bitch PhD, Lauren, Twitchy, and all the others; some of us are liberal feminists, some socialist feminists, some radical feminists, some third wave, etc. I think the best term to encompass all of us is “feminist.”
So I’d suggest “feminist” and “post-feminist” as terms. Is that something you can agree to?
I’ve read Who Stole Feminism?, but I haven’t gotten around to The War On Boys yet. I thought WSF? was okay, but you won’t be surprised to hear that I thought she was substantially mistaken about several of her major claims.
First of all, may I ask that you please avoid the term “excommunicate”? The term implies a central authority capable of excommunicating dissidents; no such central authority exists in modern feminism, so the term is inaccurate. There are no rolls that names can be struck from.
I don’t vy for control over the term “feminism.” No such control is possible, or even desirable. I do try to persuade people that feminism is still necessary, because I genuinely believe it is still necessary. But trying to persuade is not the same as trying to control.
Finally, I’m not attached to the label “anti-feminist.” I don’t think it really serves any persuasive function; it’s useful shorthand for discussions among the like-minded, but not really useful for debates. As I told Cathy when we discussed it, I’m perfectly happy to never call her an anti-feminist again.
But I am committed to the idea that “feminism” has some meaning, and will continue to try to persuade people that being a “feminist” is incompatable with the idea that feminism is no longer necessary and should be done away with.
I have been in three bands over the years that had a female lead singer. I will NEVER NEVER NEVER do that again.
Does that make me a sexist, or is it more like painfully learning that there are parts of town you just don’t go to?
I think a lot of feminists confuse the trials of being human with the trials of being a woman. My life isn’t always a bowl of cherries, either. There are assholes EVERYWHERE, and you either stand up to them, or move on. Why do women think that they are the only victims of screwed up power tripping morons?
It blows my mind that so many feminists talk about “empowerment”, but when the time comes to make a stand, they run back to the herd and call the thought police. I just don’t see any budding personal power in that course of action – in fact, what I see there is just more bullshit victimology. If your good at what you do, you’re good at what you do and reward will follow. If you whine and snipe but picture yourself as Xena, you’re screwed (unless, of course, you ARE Xena)
Harrassment and humiliation are part of our very existence. My sister was one of a VERY few women (in fact, she might have been the only one) on the trading floor of the Stock Market many years ago, and had a hell of a bad time with the men who she needed to deal with.
She didn’t whine or call a lawyer, she DEALT WITH IT, and has been very comfortably retired since her mid-thirties. Yeah, she was pissed, but fortunately for her, there were no feminist blogs she could find to worm her way back into the common victim muddle. She stood up to the idiots who weren’t half as good as she was, but thought they were.
I’m with Playah Grrrl. Stand on your own two feet, or go home. This planet is not designed for whining wussies. No one ever promised me that everyone I meet will treat me with respect just because I exist. I don’t know where that attitude came from, but I do know it didn’t originate with winners.
Playah Grrrl is right. Feminists should go where they are needed. We have all the laws you need to protect women from REAL harrassment, and the opportunities are there. If you can’t deal with assholes by yourself, then go home and get out of everybody else’s way. Although you will have plenty of company, becoming a victim is a waste of the worlds time – not to mention your own time.
THE WORLD IS CHOCK FULL OF ASSHOLES. GET USED TO IT.
I’m waiting…
TW: done – I’m done for tonjght. Isn’t anybody gonna jump on that delicious set up line?
This wasn’t my experience in the academy, where such excommunications were common when it came to hiring decisions or dissertation approvals. I submit there is a central orthodoxy, though when it is not acting to barricade the kinds of feminists I’ve been discussing, it separates out into its individuals interests within the discipline of feminist studies.
Anyway, we’re closing in on some workable terms if we can somehow combine the idea of post-feminism with the idea of pre-second wave feminism. Time permitting, I’ll read through and offer my thoughts on your series, which I appreciate your sharing.
For the time being, here’s a bit of background that might be useful. I haven’t read it through fully—just Googled it—but a quick scan suggests it can give you some idea of the impulses behind “post-feminism,” a term that’s been around since the 70s, IIRC, but one that really picked up some steam in the mid-90s. In fact, I first heard the term (combined with Chik-lit) when I chaired a conference on the intersection of creative writing and theory in 1996.
[…] (and, for marrying me, poor judgment). This attempt to define “feminism” to include only a particularly activist strain as “authentic” I’ve discussed at length […]
[…] had this debate on “feminism” before — I even invited in representatives of many of the big feminist blogs to make their […]