It seems to me that those WAF posters are reacting more to internet forum evangelizing (which, tone arguments aside, can be obnoxious just like anything else on the internet) rather than actual feminism but they haven't been educated enough to know the difference.
Because science by definition is a "theory" - not testable, observable, nor repeatable.
Why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
The idea that women deserve equality is fundamental to our cause. But if someone does not believe that - if someone believes that women should be protected from dangerous men - then no statistics on the wage gap will win them over.
"Women have the right to have their own thoughts, beliefs and opinions. As long as I don't disagree with them."
the suffragettes weren't feminists? Is that the type of argument I am now encountering in the world?
I don't need feminism; I just need a man who will respect me.
Patriarchy Fantasy: There is no “Patriarchy” because a real patriarchy would not allow women to vote, divorce, go to college, have a career, live single, get abortions, etc. If this is a patriarchy, then it’s a pathetic patriarchy and attacking it is like attacking a little boy as if he were a man.
...they might be considered (I wince giving this description) hairy legged women who don't take care of themselves or have little to no femininity; and substitute people for "guys" - I get a lot of questions straight out asking or alluding to whether or not guys are interested in women who like science; some of them seem worried that guys won't like women who are smart or opinionated.
I've also had a few remark to me that they'd love to get into science/math but they're not atheists, which always makes me pretty unhappy.
Women Against Feminism issued the following statement on its Facebook page, which has amassed over 13,800 'likes' and counting: 'So feminists have been calling us lots of names lately. Basically they are saying, "You're too stupid to know what you want. You need us to tell you what's good for you. And if you try to get away, we will throw insults"... Are all feminists like this? No. Are a lot of them like this? Yes. Just look at how the "feminist media" has treated us this week.'
So here's a question: there are women in the world who do not have it as well as Western women. Do they need "feminism"? How should we respond to their situation?
= They need true feminism, not this joke that some extremists have now created in America.
They need true feminism, not this joke that some extremists have now created in America.
I also think that self-identified feminists who feel like that label has meaning and value would do better to reform feminism as a movement and prove that it's not as bankrupt as post-feminists think.
It's not in any germane way because feminism attempts to speak for these women.
They feel left out of it as a movement on the ground and they may well have good reasons for that. (Again, cf. with racial minority women contra second wave feminists.)
Many of the post-feminist women in this blog even explicitly acknowledge the historic strides of feminism but point out that what's going on today in the here and now from what they've seen is repugnant to them. If you want to go from repulsive to attractive, then you have to change yourself (corporately, not personally) in order to speak for and to these women.
Certainly, the Phyllis Schalfleys of the world are a lost cause for feminism but not all of these women are theocrats, John Birchers, or whatever else you think they may be.
A bit of pedantry: That is what radical feminism is - the belief that it is gender that is at the root (get it?) of the oppression of women; Marxist feminism believes that class is at the root. Etc.
Getting back to Goldberg for just a second: There are so many things about her article (and that ‘Toxic Twitter’ article) that are so misleading, damaging and lousy, informed not by an attentiveness to the necessarily messy shapes of contemporary feminism in all its contexts, but by a snotty-liberal-vindictive will to make feminists, especially trans- women and women of color, appear ludicrously reactionary, censorious and even violent, for an outside audience.[ix] What she never accounts for are the complexities of the affective politics and motivations that make up feminist praxis today, that create our many overlapping scenes as places of productive tension in which we are working out ways of being in the world together. This work is characterized by rage, love, joy, disappointment, desire, hurt and hope that is so much more interesting, such a better story,[x] than the debilitating antagonism that Goldberg peddels.
Why else would the transgender phenomenon, which is recognized both legally and medically throughout North America, still remain an issue of “dispute” among the ill-informed commentariat? Why are trans women turned into topic fodder for cross-country airport reading in The New Yorker? Why else would our person or not-person status be a permissible topic for debate? To be or not to be? You enforce the question upon us do you get to be at all? Even as Goldberg concedes via quote from Janice Raymond — radical feminism’s central philosophical tenant is the eradication of trans women as an identity, experience, and legitimate sexed subjectivity.
In a world where left-wing politics has often derided LGBT identities as “bourgeois” and then accused us of splitting the movement, it infuriates me that I’ve had to take a break from writing a piece on the Tories’ “liberation” of the NHS to write 8,500 words to debunk a sexological concept that was shown to be untenable before the start of the First World War.
« Older "My son has been suspended five times. He’s 3."... | The New Yorker talks with “Row... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt