Today (March 8) is International Women’s Day. No doubt there will be numerous articles about women’s issues, women’s struggles and women’s triumphs. In this article I take a different route and address an issue that is rather taboo and off-limits, but ought to be discussed. Before I do, I want to stress that women in the west have come a long way and have a lot to be proud of. Western women have fought hard and bravely for rights and privileges that were denied to generations of women before them and have made vast strides towards greater equality and representation in society. For this, western women and traditional feminism should be applauded.
At the same time, the version of feminism that presently functions in the west—liberal, consumer, mainstream feminism—has become problematic. That is what I wish to address in this article. I want to honestly address the issue of women. I don’t mean “women’s issues”; those have been discussed at length. I mean the issue with women, meaning the problem with certain segments of the female population in the west, namely: liberal, mainstream, consumer feminists. Before you bring out the PC (politically correct) lynch mob, please read on to understand what I mean by this.
There is a segment of the female population in the west today that is very puzzling and frustrating, especially to traditional or former left-wingers, such as myself.1 I am referring to the slut marching, pussy rioting, liberal consumer feminists that fancy themselves progressive or liberal or “left wing,” today. These are the women that fight the sexual objectification of women by sexually objectifying themselves (topless FEMEN protestors anyone).2 Or the women that talk about ‘girl power’ then turn around and applaud when a Woman of the Year Award is given to a male-turned-female woman. Or the women that think revering and emulating cheesy, female pop stars—like Madonna or Beyonce or Niki Manaj—makes them ‘fierce feminists.’
While they may think themselves politically avant guarde, many of these women come off as rather apolitical and seem to have purchased ‘feminism’ as a media constructed/promoted lifestyle; hence the term consumer feminists. Their ‘feminism’ or girl power is reflected largely in the products they purchase or the lifestyle choices they make. These consumer feminists mistake buying Activia yogurt (a product marketed solely to women) or practicing yoga (in stylish and expensive yoga outfits) for being political or “progressive.” Newsflash ladies: these are lifestyle choices, not political acts or movements.
Western Liberal Feminism and the US Presidential Election
And when these liberal, consumer feminists do attempt to tackle politics or political issues, it is often done through reactionary identity politics, which substitutes the personal—personal identity, personal feelings, etc—for the political in a manner that negates broader politico-economic understanding and analysis. For instance, women that support candidates like Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman—despite her many political and geopolitical crimes and blunders. Mired in identity politics, their femaleness forces them to support a female candidate simply because of her sex, while ignoring her political actions and behaviour; however heinous it may be.
This reflects one of the many follies of identity politics: It excuses the crimes of people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama–which includes the slaughter of innocent women and people of colour all over the world–based on their gender or race. As I argue elsewhere, it is not rational to support a president or presidential candidate simply because they are a racial minority or a woman. And I say this as a female racial minority.
Nor is it constructive to build a “political” protest movement centred mainly on feelings of personal offense. A few days ago I was offered a pink hat with cat-shaped ears on it (the “pussy hat,” as it is being called), to wear as a symbol of “women’s resistance to Trump.” The pussy hat is part of the Pussyhat Project, a project begun by two American women following the 2016 US election. According to Business Insider, the hat’s name was inspired by Trump’s 2005 comments in the Access Hollywood audio leaked in October 2016, “in which he bragged about grabbing women by their genitals.”3
According to one of its co-founders, the Pussyhat Project is “about women refusing to be erased from political discussion,” reports Business Insider. While I am not sure exactly what she means by this, it seems to suggest that given that Hillary Clinton is a woman, and given that she lost the election, women—especially those women that voted for Hillary Clinton—are now being “erased” from political discussion. That does not make much sense. Are we to believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is a woman? Last year in the UK, a female Prime Minister, Teresa May, was voted in and replaced the former male Prime Minister, David Cameron. Does that mean that men in the UK are being “erased” from the political discussion?
While there is a disproportionate amount of men in western politics in general, this did not begin with the 2016 US election, and statements about women being erased from political discussion need to be politically and historically situated and qualified. The Pussyhat Project and the sea of pink at the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.” on January 21 (the day after Trump’s inauguration), with thousands of women adorned in fuzzy pink ‘pussy hats,’ served to confirm something I have thought for many years now: That western women—especially liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—are extremely conformist and easy to manipulate as well as contradictory.
Where was the female indignation during the eight years of the Obama administration, when Obama and a female Secretary of State (in the first four years) repeatedly and systematically war mongered and deployed drones to kill scores of innocent people overseas, many of them minorities and women? Where was their women’s march on Washington, D.C. then? It simply did not exist. There were no mass women’s marches or female protest movements against the previous US administration, despite its myriad political, economic, and geopolitical crimes and atrocities.
While the Obama administration was among the most imperial and war mongering in US history, continuing and intensifying many of the policies of the George W. Bush era, and while Obama failed to keep any of his campaign promises, such as his promise to close Guantanamo Bay or to end the war on terror, there was no mass female uprising against him and his administration. Of course, during the Obama administration, the mainstream media were its biggest cheerleaders. The media was not helping to “trigger” women and rile them up as they are at present.
But protesting topless or wearing a pink hat does not, in and of itself, make you political. At best it makes you a cliché and, at worst, it makes you controlled (or fake) opposition. For there is nothing genuinely political or oppositional about following a herd trend, even if that trend is said to be a political statement or a “symbol of political resistance.”
Identity Politics is a Diversion From Bigger Issues
Identity politics is a form of political capitulation that gives into the establishment. It is a distraction from, and substitution for, a failed economy and a failed political system. Identity politics replaces political and economic power and choice, or lack there of, with personal choice and personal empowerment. The personal freedoms granted under identity politics—for instance, the freedom to choose among the ever-growing number of genders, etc—can mask how politically and economically un-free and powerless we are.
Under the present global neocon/neoliberal politico-economic mono-culture, people are increasingly politically and economically disenfranchised and dis-empowered. Rather than focus on the ever-creeping economic collapse, escalating unemployment, political dis-empowerment, the growing police and surveillance state, and the general economic despair that plagues much of the world’s population, identity politics (and contemporary progressives in general) points our attention towards differences, personal identity and personal choice. How convenient for the global power structure/elites. This is especially true among that segment of the western female population—liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—that I describe above.
Western Liberal Feminists are Largely Apolitical
While Donald Trump’s misogynistic comments may warrant criticism, the problem with pussyhat wearing mainstream/consumer feminists is that they protest against him largely because they are personally offended. These women are apolitical in the broader, general sense. While they are raging against the pussy-grabbing Trump, they are silent on—if not oblivious of—the myriad other political, economic, and geopolitical problems and crises that plague humanity at present.
If these women were truly politically or critically minded, they would not have rallied behind the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. This is not about “defending Trump,” but about pointing out that a lack of political perception and critical analysis makes many ‘feminists’ blind to the crimes of the previous US administration as well as to the globalized, militarized, neoliberal/neocon politico-economic power structure in general.
Western, liberal mainstream/consumer feminism is different than radical feminism, socialist feminism, and, especially, third world feminism. This topic is too complex to address here. For now I merely wish to note that much of what passes for ‘feminism’ in the west today would potentially be questioned by veteran feminists and/or more political and class-based understandings of feminism as well as by third world feminism.
For instance, unlike many western feminists, who tout gender neutrality and the “anything you can do, I can do better” mentality, “African feminists do not attempt to rob the man of his value and worth. They simply want to be given value and worth, as well.” As Dr. Hildra Tadria of Uganda, member of the African Women Leaders Network (AWLN) and co-founder of the African Women’s Development Fund explains, “For us, the fight is to dignify what the African woman does, not to try to get her to do what the African man does.” 4
For African feminists one of the most curious aspects of western liberal feminism is its emphasis on “sexual liberalization” or hyper-sexuality. Most third world feminism is not about sexual freedom but freedom from over sexualization and over objectification. While mainstream western feminists often use the term “rape culture” to describe the west, there are many countries in the world wherein women do indeed live under the constant threat of rape–where rape and sexual violence are rampant and ignored by the state. For these women, feminism includes the desire and struggle to be less sexualized.
Ironically, while contemporary western ‘feminists’ also claim to oppose the sexual objectification of women, they often employ sexual objectification as a tool to fight or denounce it (see the slim and sexy FEMEN protesters in the picture above). While this tactic may be aimed at reclaiming the female form and female sexuality, it is ultimately counter-productive in a society where the naked form (both male and female) is still seen as sexual. Protesting topless or naked takes attention, especially media attention, away from the issues these women are protesting, and focuses it instead on bare breasts and naked bodies. Here, the image ultimately distracts from—and upstages—the message.
I am aware that criticizing these types of women may be seen as catering to the divide and conquer tactics of the power establishment on some level; since we should seek to unite with others, not criticize them. But the liberal feminism of the fake left has reached a point of absurdity and counter-productiveness that simply cannot be ignored. And western women have to have the courage to call it out.
While wearing a fuzzy ‘pussy hat’ or slut marching topless may be said to be a symbol of ‘resistance;’ I ask, resistance to what? It most certainly is not resistance to globalist power or the US establishment. Let us not forget that, prior to Trump’s victory, there was very little anti-government dissent among so-called feminists and progressives in the US. Nor was there much resistance or opposition among them to the imperial war machine and western interventions abroad, which was as robust as ever—if not more robust—under the supposed feel-good regime of Barack Obama and his sidekick, Hillary. Indeed many on the new/fake left (including liberal feminists) support these imperial, regime change interventions, in the name of liberating oppressed women or protecting human rights,etc.
It appears that second and third wave western feminism has degenerated into something that is at once apolitical (or faux political), consumerist, and a service to the global establishment. In the midst of the feel-good, reactionary spectacle of contemporary western feminism, there seems to be very little that is political or left wing in the traditional sense, meaning politics and protest that is critical of hegemonic power, Empire, imperial wars, economic collapse and despair, unemployment, and class issues.5 You know, all those “old fashioned” and un-hip issues that the left used to care about before identity politics took over and/or forced its way in.
It also appears that contemporary ‘feminists’ have been manipulated through marketing and mainstream media and sold a clichéd lifestyle as politics and political opposition. Yet, as mentioned above, their form of politics—i.e., identity politics—actually serves the establishment inasmuch as liberal feminists, and liberals or ‘progressives’ in general, readily support imperial wars, policies and interventions. In this way, these groups have (unwittingly) become pawns and proxies of the global politico-economic power structure.
While the personal may be political, it will never be more political than actual politics and political consciousness. In reality, identity politics is the opposite of politics, in that, traditionally, politics or public engagement dealt with common issues, whereas identity politics further fragments consensus and is extremely divisive. Identity politics–women competing with men or racial groups pitted against one another–reflects the divide and conquer desires and strategy of the elite, since the masses are always weaker when they are divided. It forces a false polemic that stands in the way of consensus building, collective identity, and unity. As the old activist saying goes, “the people united will never be defeated.” Identity politics flies in the face of this and does the exact opposite; it divides people at a historical juncture when unity is most urgently needed.
Western liberal feminism has succumbed to the divisive and diversionary agenda of identity politics. I for one am not moved by the media-driven, diversionary spectacle of women in pink hats or topless FEMEN protestors, which is reactionary and provocative but lacking in deeper political thought and analysis. Like so much else on the establishment or fake left, it reeks of simulacra, or, put another way, it is more spectacle than substance.
So you can keep your pussyhat, ladies, this woman has more on her mind than what’s between her legs.
1 I no longer use the term left wing due to identity politics. It should also be noted that I do not identity as a feminist. If I had to use a label it would be anti-imperialist humanist.
2 I am not “shaming” women for going topless but simply pointing out the contradiction of doing so in order to oppose the sexual objectification of women.
3 While misogynistic comments—such as those made by Trump—may warrant criticism, he made those comments privately. As Hillary Clinton once told a group of Wall Street banking executives in an email exchange leaked on wikileaks, “you need both a public and private position.” I’m sure Hillary’s husband Bill’s private “position” on women would be even more shocking than Trump’s. Bill is a notorious womanizer and his private comments on women and their bodies would likely leave many horrified.
5 Today class is not just about money or income, nor is it simply about the means of production. Today class it is arguably equally about, if not more about, similarities in the way people live and the things they do.
Simon Hodges said:
An interesting and risky sort of piece. It has many inter-connections with things I have been writing about recently.
In philosophical terms then I believe that since the fall of communism our political parties have degenerated from being more open minded, liberally guided institutions into what I would term a morally and ethically disinterested McCarthyist Liberal Fundamentalism that is even more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalism as it actually possesses weapons of mass destruction and uses them every day in trying to realize its utterly misguided ambitions.
There are all sorts of complex reasons for this not least the effects and side-effects of the fall of communism. The fall of communism brought about a transformation in the critical base of leftist and liberal thought from the central critique of the functioning of capitalism and then doing a find and replace substitution of the word and concept of power within its critical texts. This was simple. Capitalism is unjust etc. simply becomes Power is unjust etc.
Whilst such a critique can be applied to the functioning of institutional systems, then it ends up being fundamentally depressing in that the centrally assumed functioning of power ultimately diffuses down into every human relationship and conversation and ultimately tries to render, interpret, understand and interrogate every relationship, conversation or speech act in terms of a politically charged – but unbearably bleak and eternal perceptual framework which engages all of us in power’s struggle in and around our actions or speech acts which can only be understood within the limited conceptual framework of an eternal sentencing to oppression and resistance.
In this reductive process all other human traits, values or characteristics become excluded. Even ‘humour’ is necessarily recognized by critical power theory as an expression of political ‘resistance’.
This effective politicization of the private sphere actually ends up as kind of persistent nightmare of Kafkaesque reason as it involves us all in policing, interrogating, witch-hunting and media trialling of all our conversations and relationships. It is a completely nihilistic and unhealthy view of the world that far from ‘empowering’ anyone – ultimately leaves them withdrawing from the world into their bubbles and protected safe spaces.
The fall of communism and this resulting critical power switch – logically terminated in the left becoming economically disinterested in the economic comfort zones and security of the masses which they assumed did not need protecting any more, in favour of exclusively focusing on micro-politics such as micro-aggressions and power struggles or positively discriminating and benefitting the needs of arbitrary special interest groups which it happens to recognize (immigrants, banks and other multi-national corporations to name but a few).
In terms of immigration this has been carried out as part of an entirely ill-thought political experiment based upon faulty liberal humanist and liberal fundamentalist assumptions. In this respect all our governments are morally tough on racism or resentment but not critically tough on the causes of racism and resentment which directly arose from their own political and cultural experiments in positive discrimination and immigration for example. That is to say that they simply get angry at people for expressing their resentments instead of actively engaging in or trying to fully understand the sources and causes of those resentments. One of the fundamental tenets of liberalism is equality, but Liberal Fundamentalism hypocritically institutionalizes inequality and refuses to accept any responsibility for the collateral damage of resentment, racism and violence that results from its national social experiments conducted under a faulty ideology. Similarly, privileging the interests of banks and corporations over those of its people and SMEs has contributed to the anti-establishment backlash that we have seen expressed through Brexit and Trump.
This cannot be writ larger or more terribly than in their experiments in the Middle East. They necessarily failed in their imperialist attempts to drop democracy and their ideology of liberal fundamentalism onto the peoples of the Middle East any more than they could have succeeded in parachuting the ‘music’ of Thrash Metal onto the region.
However, despite this abject failure which has led to the deaths of over 1 million Muslims, they have carried on the experiment in trying to bring as many refugees and immigrants into the west as possible. In doing this they assumed that those immigrants would be able to hear their liberal fundamentalism more clearly or that they could more closely control the contexts of their Muslim experiences in order to convert them as a covert version of imperialism that transports, imports and transplants its objects from one cultural and historical contextual soil to another and then naively assumes that it is just a matter of waiting for the Islamic (possibly fundamentalist) subject to come to what they take to be the self-evident conclusions of liberal fundamentalism as the assumed obvious logical outcome as liberal fundamentalism being the pure expression of a global and universally applicable human nature and failing to understand it as being a characteristically Western historical and cultural construct.
Liberal fundamentalism is the real enemy here. I’m simply amazed how any genuine liberals or feminists allowed themselves to be duped into supporting the imperialist global agenda of the US neoconservative deep state and not realize they have been cynically exploited as useful idiots by all the dark agencies of that extremist cause.
From the illegal Invasion of Iraq to the civil wars created in Libya and Syria etc, then all of history in the Middle East since 2003 and also in the Ukraine has precisely followed the neoconservative agenda to the letter and the liberal left apparently has nothing to say on the matter.
Simon Hodges said:
Ghada. I read your first link and find many points of contact with what I have been thinking that may be worth discussing. I’m not really interested in immigration as such but rather think that we should be as tough on the causes of racism as we are on racism itself and that we need to be tough on the causes of terrorism and not just militarily tough on terrorists.
From my perspective terrorists have a good many genuine grievances which have been ignored by the west when they have been expressed in peaceful terms. In this respect terrorist activities are understandable as a desperate last resort. We in the West need to make some honest introspective criticisms of our actions in the region in order to understand how we have effectively fomented the issues there and acknowledge that we bear a massive responsibility for events. To refuse to do so is morally and ethically dishonest.
I wanted to ask if you have had much exposure to post-structuralist and postmodernist thinking in your studies? You used the term simulacra leading me to think you may have read Baudrillard.
Ghada Chehade said:
I categorically disagree with terrorism as a tactic. I also believe the majority of it is state-sponsored.
Simon Hodges said:
One good example of a western liberal ‘feminist’ response to the war in Syria is below.
Its interesting to contrast this with an alternative ‘feminist’ review of the sanctions and later invasion of Iraq.
Click to access Works_%26_Days.pdf
Simon Hodges said:
Did you have some issues with my other comment then?
Ron Horn said:
My god, this is such a wonderful article! There is a treasure chest of political insights in it. I have re-posted it on my website, “Surviving Capitalism”.
Pingback: We Need to Talk about Women: The Problem with Western Liberal ‘Feminists’ | Counter Information
Patricia Hartnett said:
Good to read these thoughts and analysis. What a relief from the embarrassing ignorance of my good smart liberal elite friends. To whom I will forward the article. Also, do look at Barbara McClean’s very similar take at Counterpunchhttp://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/09/90368/
“No Silly Pink Hats For Me”. I breathe a sigh of relief.
Pingback: “We Need to Talk about Women: The Problem with Western Liberal ‘Feminists’” – An Outsider's Sojourn II
This article is so absurdly problematic and under-researched, its alarming. While I recognize you are not the New York Times, publishing such a harmful piece of anti-feminist propaganda is a prime example of why we still need a women’s movement. While I will always defend your right to voice an opinion and choose how you practice your feminism (even though you don’t believe you are one), I can’t help but shake my head at how uninformed you are about the topic.
NEWS FLASH: Judging by content of character is not “anti-feminist” by any stretch of the imagination.
And the question still remains -WHERE WERE YOU WHEN OBAMA AND CLINTON WERE DOING ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU NOW CRITICIZE TRUMP FOR DOING???
…and as far as your claim about how “uninformed” we are for asking this specific question, is it too much to ask you to give some kind of actual evidence that Obama and Hillary Clinton have not already done what Trump is doing?
And, at this point, if you are still unable to grasp that anything from corporate-owned media cannot be trusted in any case, then the only “harmful anti-feminist propaganda” going on here is your willingness to align yourself with the corporate viewpoint that all those people, all over the world, are lying about the heinous slaughter and crimes against humanity they’ve endured from Obama and Hillary for the last 8 years.
In the meantime, here is my direct response to corporate-media devotees, like yourself, who allow war-mongering billionaires, like George Soros, to co-opt and use the feminist message as a tool to further their own agenda, without any protest on your part. (SHAME ON YOU!!!):
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on Donald trump. I agree with you on a lot of your points but I find your opinion on thinking that Hilary Clinton losing because she’s a woman problematic. It is so very clear that Donald Trump is not a good representation of what it is to be a humanist (I say humanist because you identify with that as a pose to a feminist). It seems very obvious to me that if the roles were reversed, if Donald was a woman and Hilary a man, that there would be no contest. I understand that you had to make it clear that you weren’t trying to defend Trump, but that is obvious. As to why there hasn’t been revolt by women prior to Trump… Well… Simply put… No shit. We’ve been brainwashed. But I will stand and say that better late than never. Although I couldn’t attend the women’s March, I do know that hundreds of my fellow scholars, athletes, poets, artists, and activists attended. Not to be topless and wear a pink hat, but to stand together and give confidence and a sense of solidarity to women who have had their sexual assault cases thrown out, or was told that they couldn’t have an abortion, or for women like me who had her boss’s hand slide into her pants and was fired after she reported it. A punk hat for one day looked like a little bonus – not a fundamental distraction from the economic political crisis. I should also note that these women aren’t trying to say they’re better than man, you must know that. They’re trying to say that they’re good enough and that we can all do better to remind ourselves of that. The march for women has been happening for a very long time. Long before the Trump administration. The reason it’s become a bigger topic of interest now, is because for some fucking reason a person like Donald Trump became president, even if it was against a war monger… Consider it a wake up call? A very obvious one? Trump will make an excellent war monger himself, as a bonus to all of the excellent qualities he already possesses. He’s not just a mysogonist. That’s just really the icing on the cake for half the population to digest.
I also want to point out that you mentioned Hilary’s husband. Why? Did he run for president in 2016? Are you ridiculing Hilary for choosing him as a mate? You must know that her situation with her husband is far more complex and irrelevant to the argument against her feminist and political agenda. She was blamed and ridiculed for the actions of her husband. Still is apparently. Still is always reminded of and compared to him. Even by educated humanists.
There are many things in this consumer society distracting us from global issues and political economic issues – I don’t believe the women’s March or western feminism is the driving force of these distractions. I think specific agendas and components within western feminism are and they should be addressed and you have done a job of addressing them. But we make up 52% of the populatiion… And we all have iPhones… Some of us are bound to be led astray.
Why does it not bother you that, just like Camille Cosby, Hillary Clinton has been an enabler of a serial rapist for decades? There is a double standard going on here that discredits everything you claim to represent when you refuse to hold EVERYONE up to the same standards you hold specific others, like Trump, to. So is Camille Cosby your ideal of a feminist too?
When is content of character going to mean more than superficial appearances to you selective-memory “feminists” who refuse to even take note that Trump and the Clintons are well-documented to be life-long, close friends?
And what about the countless child rape victims of that convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein? They are currently struggling with the court system to bring all the members of Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile ring to justice, and no one in the media cares?
How is this corporate-approved vision of “women’s solidarity” not a slap in the face to all the child rape victims of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein -who also just happens to have a well-documented close friendship with Bill Clinton?
…Not to mention all the rape victims of Bill Clinton who are literally left with nowhere to turn for support and safety except for the Republican party?! Supporting Bill Clinton’s rape victims is something that the Democrat party should’ve done decades ago when the rape complaints first starting coming out. YOU “FEMINIST” HYPOCRITES CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS HERE!!
Thank you for posting this article. Now I don’t feel so alone:
‘Womens March Hypocrisy and My Refusal to Go Along With It’ 21 January 2017
Good article, Ghada.
Suggest you investigate the concept of gender narcissism (e.g., heretic Gerald Schoenewolf) and then consider ideological feminism from the perspective of Christopher Lasch’s book “The Culture of Narcissism.” That is, feminism is a gender-specific subset of the narcissistic decay of society.
Your post’s 2nd endnote actually exposes narcissism mirroring (what the narcissist wants to be true about themselves) and projection of shame (an known defence mechanism)–these women unconsciously want to be victims of objectification, and so act to ensure it will happen and are thus consequently outraged at the supposed affront they endure (thus projecting their own unconscious (and irrational) shame at being women).
The same essential dynamic is at play with ‘slutwalks.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ghada Chehade said:
Thank you. And thanks for the info
This article brings up a lot of good points. One thing I have to say is that in some ways Hillary did lose because she was a woman. I wish I could give primary quotes, but there were people who generally vote Democrat who stated they didn’t vote for her because she is a woman, and that cut away at her support in important places such as the rustbelt which is very macho. I have one uncle who had he been alive would not have voted for her (although I understand you are critiquing a specific comment related to the pussy hats). Also, the two party and electoral college political system of the US helps to keep us from being truly radical. I voted for Obama twice, despite the fact that he was droning the Arab world, because the alternatives are, well, what we have now. I remembered being super thrilled voting for Bernie in the primaries, and then he lost and the only viable option against Trump was Clinton. In all this mess the more radical elements that could lead to actual social change are relegated to the sidelines. I remember going to the march and wondering how many of these women were actually feminists outside of their Trump rage, especially considering how much discussion on actually moving forward to promote women’s rights has been derailed by conversations about Transgender identity politics. I would be interested on hearing your opinions about climate change and women, that is something I am trying to focus on with my new blog. Western liberal feminists are completely leaving this out of the discourse, maybe because they don’t want to face their own responsibility in creating climate change – along with focusing on choice Feminism, hypersexuality, and basically everything you mentioned to the detriment of actual issues.
Dennis Bohner said:
You are no more special then any other cult formulated upon a ‘special’ status. That the status is self conferred and ephemera does not compute in the self absorbed dialectic espoused like any other sect.
I want you to be free to become whatever you want within the bounds of your and society’s resources. What is problematical is that you expect a little ‘extra’, something to put you over the crest which is to be donated by others.
I’m not talking about we adult males being the only sacrificing contributors to your exalted selves. No, no.
You want your boys to die in combat or waste years of their lives contributing nothing but peace of mind to your shopping sprees. You want your daughters to exceed in every metric. You want lots of remuneration for ordinary skills and effort. You demand exemptions from whatever does not suit you due to the demands of your sex parts. You don’t give away shit to anyone. Studies prove that you prefer the pretty faces of scum to the ordinary features of good men.
Instead of feminism having heart it has demands.
You want to have it ALL.
Children think like that.
Little megalomaniacs who when analyzed are just whiny bitches in yoga pants.
Not being special may seem unfair but you have umpteen thousands of years of primate history to deal with when you were not. There was no space at the top of that steep pyramid.
But do not worry, the Third Industrial Revolution has started and none of the concerns that you have will be of merit soon. Then you can watch dumbass sports with us for you will have nothing to do.
(Some of this could be satire.)
Pingback: Ghada's SoapBox
Pingback: On the Cosmology of Balance: Using “crazy women” as a way to measure the imbalance between the natural and man-made worlds | Ghada's SoapBox
“Identity Politics is a Diversion From Bigger Issues” That needs to be placed on a T-shirt. Lol. I’m glad my friend sent me a link to your blog. I’m finding some great articles you’ve written so well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Today, is it healthier to be in a committed monogamous relationship? – _ Tegunology _