And so I ask myself

This is a mistake. A closer look at the arguments being made by these two camps reveals a deeper, more serious intellectual rift. What’s really at play is that feminism has come to contain two distinct understandings of sexism, and two wildly different, often incompatible ideas of how that problem should be solved. One approach is individualist, hard-headed, grounded in ideals of pragmatism, realism and self-sufficiency. The other is expansive, communal, idealistic and premised on the ideals of mutual interest and solidarity. The clash between these two kinds of feminism has been starkly exposed by #MeToo, but the crisis is the result of shifts in feminist thought that have been decades in the making.

Do I actually care?

Umm, no, no I don’t.

As with some of the Senior Lecturer’s output, it reeks of pinheads dancing upon angels.

11 comments on “And so I ask myself

  1. Far more entertaining is the ongoing fight between men masquerading as women and traditional feminists. I see a bunch of transgender “women” are threatening to dominate Labour’s all-women shortlists much to the dismay of actual women, which has me laughing like a drain.

  2. Logical extension of identity politics. The reason it’s a surprise to the Leftie’s is that they are incapable of logical thought. Mind you, even if they could have foreseen it, they’d have done it anyway as they hate people.

  3. Logical extension of identity politics. The reason it’s a surprise to the Leftie’s is that they are incapable of logical thought. Mind you, even if they could have foreseen it, they’d have done it anyway as they hate people.

    They wanted to “smash the system” but only partially, and are now dismayed that others even loonier than them went to smash theirs.

  4. ‘The crisis is the result of shifts in feminist thought that have been decades in the making.’

    Crisis? Wut?

  5. Like the Iran-Iraq War it is just a shame they all can’t lose.

    Well they could but that would take courage on the part of the conservatives. Instead sanity will have to wait for Islamic State to take over. The fact that such an argument needs to be made is proof of how insane Britain has become.

  6. What’s really at play is that feminism has come to contain two distinct understandings of sexism, and two wildly different, often incompatible ideas of how that problem should be solved.

    If only there were just “two” incompatible ideas of how that problem should be solved.
    I’ve long been of the estimation that feminism isn’t an intellectual or philosophical movement, but merely an alliance of such movements, whose only unifying feature is “Women Good!”

  7. “Do I actually care? Umm, no, no I don’t.”

    Which is no doubt why you took the time to write about it.
    🙂

    “Far more entertaining is the ongoing fight between men masquerading as women and traditional feminists.”

    And some people think it’s *me* that’s obsessed with the subject, and the one who keeps bringing it up…

    “I’ve long been of the estimation that feminism isn’t an intellectual or philosophical movement, but merely an alliance of such movements, whose only unifying feature is “Women Good!””

    I’ve never really understood why anyone would think otherwise. It’s not even an alliance – just lots of different groups with a variety of ideas, the only common feature being that they can be considered ‘pro-women’.

    If a right-wing woman believed in equal rights for women, while running a business, opposing socialism, supporting Trump and Farage, rejecting political correctness, and all the rest of it, she’d still be describable as a ‘feminist’. And certain people here would still believe her to be in league with Stalin, and would be totally astonished if she was seen arguing with the SJWs.

    The idea that there are more than just the two groups “us and them” in the world is totally beyond some people’s comprehension.

  8. Does everything in your house have a little label on it NiV so you don’t forget –or even worse–misname something?

    Feminism once had–perhaps–the meaning you give it in your example. It was long ago seized by leftist shite. The smug assumption that only the great NiV has any sort of nuance about such labels–ie everybody else freaks and follows some automatic pattern on hearing the word–does you little credit. The reason the word draws fire is that the vast majority of the scummers fixing that label to themselves are the gutter-scrapings of the left.

  9. “The idea that there are more than just the two groups “us and them” in the world is totally beyond some people’s comprehension.”

    NiV: Russian for “group of one.”

  10. ‘The idea that there are more than just the two groups “us and them” in the world is totally beyond some people’s comprehension.’

    Two groups. Like men and women. OH NO! THERE ARE MANY MORE! And if you don’t comprehend it, you are defective. You are defective if you don’t comprehend that women can have dicks.

  11. I do actually care about the outcome of the debate because if the wrong side (viz. gender feminism) wins then it will have a sharply deleterious effect on women and girls, some of whom I love very much and do not wish to see hurt. It’s already done a great deal of harm to men and boys. A backlash of some sort seems inevitable in the face of the absurdities that third wave feminism throws up, but I hope we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.