- There’s a story that does the rounds in politics about a radicalised council in north London in the 1980s, when the Trotskyite entryists were worming their way inside the local Labour Parties with all the potency of dry rot. It goes like this: if an unsuspecting comrade, new to the area, wanted to join his or her local branch they would be informed that they couldn’t.
“Sorry,” they would be told as the door was slammed in their face. “No vacancies.”
Ever tried to engage with feminism on the internet?
Feminism in modern society is a strange thing. Feminism has a long history with discrete waves and motivations, and there's a modern population that largely doesn't understand them. One of the more progressive ideas to be embraced by (some in) the current wave of feminism is total gender neutrality in society. Things like chivalry couldn't be compatible with this wave, because something like chivalry reinforces notions that femininity comes with certain conditions and expectations. It will be "ladies first" but that is because ladies are weak, helpless, "pure", etc., and will be expected to behave like such in society. It strives to redefine the concept of "feminine" to strip it of it's insidious restraints of women. So the current state of feminism is pretty nuanced and evolved, but a lot of people are clueless to that. Rather, you have a lot of people who think of feminism in terms of the attitudes of the first wave: marked by anger and rather reactionary. You have people rallying for and against feminism on these terms such that it has become the commonly perceived face of feminism.
I really dig this article and I agree with it on many levels, including the idea that online feminism exists in stark contrast to the way many feminists conduct themselves in the real world. It's interesting to me too that Smith brings up the jargon of online feminism and very rightly identifies it as a divisive device used to browbeat those that they are "offended" and "outraged" by. If there's one thing that Western society needs less of, it's outrage. If there's one thing it needs more of, it's action. I think that chivalry gets an unfair rap. It's out of context. In its day, it was yes, patronizing, but those were patronizing times. It was also a way of showing respect for women, albeit through a very different lens than the way many would view the world today. Furthermore, the age of chivalry was very much one in which lofty ideals ruled, in part because few if any adhered to the ideals. They were something to aspire to. I dislike the idea of total gender neutrality, personally. I'm not saying that I think that men's and women's or even transgendered people's roles should be strictly defined, but I don't see what is wrong with identifying as a man or as a woman or whatever. I also find it ridiculous that there are people out there who would want individuals to conform to their terminology without asking, as Smith mentions in regard to "cis." I think gender neutrality has its place, but to ask for total gender neutrality in society at large seems unworkable and unnecessary.
I think this article is very self-defeating. No, that's not quite right. Hypocritical? I'm just going to go with unproductive.
I'd have to say the same thing about your comment, since you didn't justify any of your concerns.
Good point, I wrote that because I wasn't sure (and am still not sure) how to word a disagreement to certain points without someone seeing it as an example of what the article is supposedly against. By poking at a hot-button issue like transgender rights with a stick, the author ensured, even if unintentionally, that much of the response garnered would be of the ilk she was describing. And since much of the article was just self-admitted insults and name-calling, I think it just adds to the divisiveness instead of doing anything productive.
I felt she made it quite clear that she was taking offence to a group of people that were misusing the banner of feminism. Sure, from the outside they all look like feminists but if you look a little closer you see the massive divide in fundamental theory and in the practice of advancing women's rights. The same things can be seen in most movements, like african-american gangs spoiling the name of the anti-discrimination movement or religious/atheist reactionaries making the more level headed individuals look bad.