Commenters here and here argue that the word feminism is “meaningless,” the evidence being that various people who self-identify as “feminist” nonetheless disagree about the way to best achieve gender equality. Held to the same standard every word denoting every ideology is just a chain of syllables. Adherents to the things we call “Christianity,” “Keynesianism,” and “Maoism,” as it turns out, have had their disagreements too. Somehow we manage to make sense of it all. Ron Paul wants to shut the borders; I want to fling them open; no one ever says that the word “libertarian” lacks content.
Why does ideological disagreement among friends of feminism, specifically, lead to the conclusion that it’s all just sound and fury? Not too long ago I was told how I felt about some elective surgery because, after all, other women feel that way. This is the oldest of hats, I know. But for as long as people think women ought to all behave according to the same transparent feminine formulae, they’ll treat intellectual differences among feminists as internal confusion rather than rational debate. The assumption is that if you happen to disagree with other people with ovaries, the whole lot of you aren’t making sense.
You see how debate among feminists looks to the kind of people who have “theories about women.” They can’t even agree among themselves! Hysterics! Unmoored uteri! It can’t be that women of a similar ideological orientation reasonably disagree on various means toward the same ends. Rather, The Great Woman Machine, in its attempt to issue to the Single Feminist Directive, has malfunctioned. All those feminist debates about sex work? Porn? The patriarchal state? That’s just the machine spitting sparks. Better to walk away and come back when things are all cleaned up, when the chaos is quelled and the collective fembot can make up its damn mind.
There are feminists. There are antifeminists. You really do know the difference.
Heya Kerry, I just don’t get that Atlantic article. I disagree with her understanding of biology – certainly if we look at our monkey relatives, boy howdy, girl monkeys want it.
I don’t think she has good primatology there. In fact, I think the latest primatology suggests that girl monkeys go chasing all over for the monkey boy with the most awesomely hot smelling genes. And we human chicks have got the same vaso receptors too, I hear.
As for the personal experience, woo – I want it too. Frankly, I think it. I love men, I love the way they smell. . .I adore them, I want them, I happily patter about in F-Me pumps and skirts, and I’m not ashamed of that.
Does that make me a feminist or an anti-feminist?
Hey webgrrl! Welcome! That was totally the wrong link. But I agree. Also, I have a closet full of F-me boots, which really doesn’t do much for her thesis.
Howdy again Kerry! Cool! I love boots! Wear your boots ‘n rock.
Shoes aside, let’s get down to the substance of the corrected link. I’ll be clear here – only the truth shall set us free – I’ve had a little elective surgery myself. And it wasn’t any big deal, I’m not secretly in denial, and no I wasn’t traumatized because I am not a victim.
Making my own choices doesn’t traumatize me, it empowers me. What is hard to see about this?
Thanks for the welcome.
Hello! I’ve been reading your series “Libertarian versus Feminism: It doesn’t have to be versus, at least, not all the time, yo.”
I mostly commented because the person just before me is another grrl from the web, and I wanted to keep the pattern alive. Hooray!
Oh yeah, flynngrrl! Is this like a secret gathering of Dita von Teese fans or what? Seriously. Who’s next in the comment thread? I mean really – who best embodies do-me capitalism?
[...] as a particularly arrogant commenter using the handle x. trapnel put it on Ladyblog — there’s Kerry Howley, with whom we began, to insist that feminist ideological diversity is being unfairly characterized [...]