How do you know when you have struck a nerve? When people with arguments based on pure emotion backed with no facts, decide to foam at the mouth. Earlier today I was alerted by Ms. Alkon that she had decided to author a response to my post entitled, "Feminism, What You Don't Know Could Fill A Handbook." The premise of this post was to encourage women who identify as DIY, post-structural, Marxist etc to become more public in their critique of third/second wave feminists. It is my belief that third/second wave feminists, have centered the feminist agenda around their needs, and this has resulted in a massive public backlash.
Of course rather than dealing with the issue presented, Ms.Alkon, and those of her ilk, have seen fit to once again make the debate about misandry, to avoid the issue that was presented to them. Nowhere in my original post do I advocate special privileges for women, nor do I specifically mention patriarchy, or the oppression of women. It seems that those that disavow feminism in favor of men's rights (read:Stockholm Syndrome), or out of a simple ignorance of what feminism means, are incapable of considering the larger applications of their assertions.
Ms. Alkon believes in equality, yet when I make a small grammar mistake, I am held to ridicule, however the same standards of perfection are apparently not necessary if you are parroting her position. Notice no commentary is made on Luljp's misspelling of vagina. You may posses one, however it is clearly not important to you that they are respected, or that the word is even spelled properly for that matter. I wish that I could report that this is all that you have evidenced a lack of respect for.
"If you're a lesbian, fine. If you're going to paint heterosexual sex as a criminal act by a man most of the time, you're scum, and anybody who's for justice, fairness and equality, should stand up against you."
Say it with me everyone...massive homophobic projection. You must have done very well at the Rush Limbaugh school of social equality, and I bet Phyllis Shyfly is on your Christmas card list. Feminist naturally equals lesbian, hardly an original thought. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from every single man that tried to belittle a woman who thought that she had the right to equality, and basic human dignity. Of course you mean to imply that being a lesbian is a negative thing. Of course anything woman centered, that does not involve phalocentric worship is despicable, and *gasp* dirty. Say it with me everyone...COLLUDER, in fact HOMPHOBIC COLLUDER is more accurate. Do you have any other mendacious myths that you would like to spread? Calling a feminist a lesbian, is an attempt to stigmatize based on the social construction of 'woman' as naturally submissive combined with the specific understanding that we exist for reproduction, and male sexual pleasure. If you don't spend 24 hours a day ruminating on how to make every prick a happy prick, you are an "unwoman". Margaret Atwood was thinking of women like you, when she wrote A Handmaids Tale.
"I'm against feminism because I'm against discrimination against men or anyone, and feminism is, far too often, a big whine for special treatment under the guise of equal treatment."
Right, because you are aware of all of the different forms of feminism, and you have spent a great deal of time studying feminist theory? This is a warning to everyone, Ms.Alkon is a clear example of a mind that has clearly internalized way to many episodes of Fox news broadcasts. Let's just listen to what brother patriarchy has to say about feminism, without for one minute stopping to think that he might be the least bit self interested. Of course men who have historically held the reigns of power are going to be honest about gender relations, because they are naturally inclined to share power with a group that they have oppressed since time began. That makes a whole lot of sense.
"Abelism"? I have to pass that one on to my friend John Callahan, the quadriplegic cartoonist, who will throw up while laughing.
I bet your best friend growing up was black as well?
Renee doesn’t really want non-feminists to understand there are differences in feminism. She wants the leaders of the feminist monolith to convert to and promote her brand of feminism (womanism). She’s tired of the “white suburban, mini van driving, soccer mom” or the [white] “urban 20 something New York socialite” being the face of feminism.
Do I really need to quote myself. "My feminism speaks to who I am as a person, it speaks to my needs, and desires, and it is certainly not representative of women at large." Just a few more moments of patience, while I break it down for the kool aid sippers. The idea is that feminism should open itself up to a diversity of voices so that the various lived experiences of women may be reified. Despite your scurrilous attempt to misrepresent me, I stand fast to the idea that a more inclusive feminism that disavows the concept of a monolithic woman, means a more open debate. On a short aside, If you are trying to impress me with your ability to research, you should probably not reference a site ( Wikki) that any idiot can edit at anytime.
Of course, Renee will will respond "later." She has to do some research first, find some good catch phrases to rip off of the NOW site and regurgitate.
I actually lead quite a full life, and I will not arrange my schedule to suite your whims. Sorry that you had to wait, but patience is something people usually acquire in childhood. As for me running to NOW to plagiarize, clearly you have difficulty with reading comprehension. The name of the blog is WOMANIST MUSINGS, which would necessarily indicate that I hold an opposite theoretical position to the women that run NOW. Your knowledge of feminist theory is overwhelming, as evidenced by the following, "Yes, there are many different shades of being a whining victim and speaking in that incomprehensible "post-structuralist" lingo and all that. Nothing about my post was remotely post structural. "There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... Identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." Now that is post structural theory courtesy of Judith Butler, but if you cannot comprehend the writing on this blog, Judith Butler would obviously be out of your league.
You throw catch words around like, equality and justice. You profess to believe that men and women are equal. Where exactly do you think the concept of gender equality came from in the first place? Could those possibly be the organizing principles of Liberal Feminism? But you are not a feminist right? All feminist think exactly the same way. There is no difference between your inane vitriolic rants, and those issued by the Ferraro/ Steinem crowd. You are both so interested in working an agenda that you forget that social change starts when people converse. I said that feminism is great but...the keyword is but. Once you heard that I had a positive view of feminism, you never stopped to hear that I might also think that it could be improved. You hear only what you want to hear, and ignore the ever so important word but... This is silencing behavior, and it is a tactic that second/third wave feminists have been using for years. It seems you share the same playbook. I know that you will misconstrue my words to mean the exact opposite of my intent because that is what ideologues do. As for the trolls in your commentary section, when I get around to it, if I can find even one rationale comment I will respond. For those of you that are lurking and questioning, don't take me at my word for it, research the different feminists theories and decide for yourself if they are really what you have been told they are.