Robert Stacy McCain on feminism’s mainstreaming of extremists:
Any honest person who undertakes an in-depth study of modern feminism, from its inception inside the 1960s New Left to its institutionalisation within Women’s Studies departments at universities, will understand that without the influence of radicals — militant haters of capitalism and Christianity, angry lesbians who view all males as a sort of malignant disease, deranged women who can’t distinguish between political grievances and their own mental illnesses — there probably never would have been a feminist movement at all…
Once we go beyond simplistic sloganeering about “equality” and “choice” to examine feminism as political philosophy — the theoretical understanding to which Ph.Ds devote their academic careers — we discover a worldview in which men and women are assumed to be implacable antagonists, where males are oppressors and women are their victims, and where heterosexuality is specifically condemned as the means by which this male-dominated system operates.
As noted previously, when it comes to identity politics, the boundaries between mainstream and delusional aren’t as clear as one might wish.
And Thomas Sowell on cultural inequalities:
While cultural leadership has changed hands many times, that leadership has been real at given times, and much of what was achieved in the process has contributed enormously to our well-being and opportunities today. Cultural competition is not a zero-sum game. It is what advances the human race. Cultures are living, changing ways of doing all the things that have to be done in life. Every culture discards over time the things which no longer do the job or which don’t do the job as well as things borrowed from other cultures… Spanish as spoken in Spain includes words taken from Arabic, and Spanish as spoken in Argentina has Italian words taken from the large Italian immigrant population there. People eat Kentucky Fried Chicken in Singapore and stay in Hilton hotels in Cairo.
This is not what some of the advocates of “diversity” have in mind. They seem to want to preserve cultures in their purity, almost like butterflies preserved in amber. Decisions about change, if any, seem to be regarded as collective decisions, political decisions. But that is not how any cultures have arrived where they are… No culture has grown great in isolation — but a number of cultures have made historic and even astonishing advances when their isolation was ended, usually by events beyond their control.
At which point readers may recall the Guardian’s Emer O’Toole, a “postcolonial theorist” and assistant professor of Irish Performance Studies, for whom all cultures past and present are equally vibrant and noble, except of course the culture in which she currently flourishes, on which opprobrium must be heaped ostentatiously and often.
Ms O’Toole famously bemoaned the colonial propagation of Shakespeare, whose works she denounced as “full of classism, sexism, racism and defunct social mores.” And worse, “a powerful tool of empire, transported to foreign climes along with the doctrine of European cultural superiority.” The possibility that at any given time one set of values and insights might be preferable to another, even objectively better, bothers her quite a bit.
Her article was accompanied by a photograph of New Zealand’s Ngakau Toa theatre company performing Troilus and Cressida in a distinctively Maori style. To me, it looked fun and worth the price of a ticket. But this cross-cultural fusion saddened Ms O’Toole, who dismissed notions of the Bard’s universality as “uncomfortably colonial.” She then presumed to take umbrage on behalf of all past colonial subjects, whose own views on Shakespeare and literature she chose not to relate. She did, however, get quite upset about “our sense of cultural superiority” – a sense of superiority that, she insisted, has long been “disavowed by all but the crazies.”
It may be a tad indelicate, even improper, but I can’t help wondering how Ms O’Toole might have felt had she been among the 19th century English colonists who encountered a Maori culture that was all but prehistoric, with no discernible literature or science, in which the average lifespan was about thirty years or so, and where cannibalism was not unknown. Faced with such things, I’m sure Ms O’Toole would have resisted the wicked urge to think herself a little more culturally advanced.
When not romanticising the cultural purity of others from a safe distance, Ms O’Toole prides herself on denouncing those more primitive than herself – say, women who choose to shave their armpits. In Ms O’Toole’s moral universe, cultivating armpit hair is “the necessary and important work of challenging stupid, arbitrary, gendered bullshit.” And our right-thinking Guardianista tells us, several times, that her boyfriends have thought her “brave” for daring not to shave.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
@Minnow And yet everywhere we look we see murder and misery, prisons, camps, and torture chambers, and no feminists to be seen running any of it. Funny world.
No, true. But they are all mostly communists.
Not sure how one can even take a stab on how an animal would behave in a hypothetical future wild environment when said creature shows no consistent behavior, aside from a persistent inconsistency, in the lab.
That is sort of the point about feminism
Already talking bollocks, again, Minnow.
If there was a single, identifiable “point about feminism” then there would be something that could be proven or disproven forever.
There isn’t, of course. Feminism benefits from vaguely meaning one thing today, another tomorrow. It’s basically just a lot of pretend-principled rhetoric and point-scoring. Sound familiar?
“but I don’t think Minnow would fall into the killing-people-if-he-had-half-a-chance category.”
Review “Who Goes Nazi?”
Those passive-aggressive types are usually first in line to wield the whip. They’re not in the Führer’s inner circle; they just populate the little Eichmann offices where they look you in the eye before deciding to send you to the gas chamber.
Because they can.
Come to think of it, Harry Potter 5 & 6 examined Who Goes Nazi. Percy Weasley, anyone? The Malfoys, who reaped exactly what they sowed?
Dolores Umbridge wore pink and had cute little kitten plates decorating her office, gamboling merrily in place while she forced Harry to write “I must not tell lies” in his own blood.
::shudder::
Heh. Strike up a relationship, get fertility, devour the weak that do not wake up.
Spiders, politics, but the modern world is so much better, at least when cruelty and humour dance.
Tangled Webs, and such.
deranged women who can’t distinguish between political grievances and their own mental illnesses
It is interesting, is it not, how many of the vociferous feminists of today – particularly the noisy aggressive ones on twitter, graunian talkboards and the staggers – have a history of mental illness. Eg Anorexia, body dysmorphia, depression, cyclothymic problems, paranoic tendencies, mood disorders…….
There are several possible explanations:
a/ they are more honest and open about their illness than ‘closet’ mental illness sufferers, thus appear more afflicted
b/ they are predisposed to think of themselves as victims and exploit/exaggerate their perceptions of normal mood variation/interactions to do so
c/ it provides a mental illness defence against dissent of their views – ie “you can’t attack my views as this is misogynist bullying/victimising a disabled person”
d/ mental illness (particularly ones relating to female body image, low mood and paranoia) are a potentially fertile mindset for manhating thoughts
e/ manhating thoughts are a potential fertile mindset for developing mental health problems
I pose these thoughts, not to stigmatise – all of us have potential mental illness in us and if unwell need sympathy and treatment. Interestingly CBT (one of the more succesful psychotherapies) is based on moving one’s mindset or displacing one’s fixed perceptions to more ‘rational’ stances. I wonder if we will reach a time when people will look back on some of the early 21st C feminist displays of palpable hostility/ victimhood/ irrationality/ vengeance and see them, not as a force for wimminhood, but more the burden of distorted thought processes and unhappiness?
I have had mild depression since my teens and despite CBT and medication, I still have episodes of irrational angst and self-loathing. I don’t express the dark thoughts online because crap, they’re awful. People would call the cops for suicide watch. By the time they arrived, I’d be happily pulling weeds in the yard, the crisis having passed.
I also dislike those emotional sandstorms intensely and cannot imagine why I’d want to experience that demented state beyond what I already have to.
We wimmens are already driven insane by our hormones. Being around men is a sanity check that helps me stabilize and level out.
They obviously are nourishing a positive-feedback loop that intensifies with each iteration. It won’t be pretty when it finally explodes.
Oh hey: #WomenAgainstFeminism
Not quite as good as #YesAllCats but still interesting.
All the poor feminists crying in the tag. It’s like being on tumblr again.
Is this a private fight, or can anybody wade in?
Minnow at 10:28, on the key figures of 70s feminism:
You shouldn’t ask them to be representative of women. That is sort of the point about feminism, that women should be able to be individuals
Minnow at 9:33, on one of the key figures of 70s feminism:
Every woman talks and acts like that
There is something like a rape culture, or has been. I watched a Spanish TV show from the 70s
There’s a real danger of fascist/communist civil war, or has been. I saw a documentary about Spain in the 30s….
“Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist“
In a nutshell:
Gee – I haven’t seen our minnow lately…
[Minnow:] You shouldn’t ask them to be representative of women. That is sort of the point about feminism, that women should be able to be individuals in the same way that men are, that they need not represent their whole sex every time they succeed or fail.
If only that was true. It isn’t.
If feminism, in its current guise, would limit its remit to equality of opportunity irrespective of plumbing, then they would by now be pushing at an open door. Feminists could declare victory and go home.
But no. Bizarrely, for the “party of science” feminists have reached the anti-human, but typically progressive, conclusion that evolution stopped at the neckline. For them, there equality of outcome is all that matters. And they resort to the most bizarre contortions of logic and abuse of statistics to justify themselves.
[Steve2:] They don’t have much time for individual women – feminists, even – who wander off the Marxoid reservation.
In 2010, Sarah Palin called herself a feminist.
Which put the harpy brigade into full vapor lock. It was fainting couches, damp cloths and powders all around until they could get their composure back and attack the defector.
Slate’s DoubleX column engaged a coven of feminists to tell us all exactly why Palin wasn’t one. I would be hard pressed to come up with a better example of leftist conformism, or the uniquely feminine capacity to be shrilly judgmental, than that.
Kay Hymowitz wrote an article, Sarah Palin and the Battle for Feminism. She noted feminist reactions to Mrs. Palin:
But “calm and collected” are not the words that come to mind to describe the feminist response to the governor from Alaska. The young feminist Jessica Grose, writing on the popular website Jezebel just after the Republican convention, was—well, we’ll let her describe it: “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull. . . . What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage.” Grose’s readers left more than 700 comments, according to the late New York Sun, including one from a reader who wanted to “vomit with rage.” Other haters damned Palin as a traitor to her sex or an “insult to women,” as Judith Warner spat in the New York Times. “Turncoat bitch!” the comedian Sandra Bernhard railed in a performance caught on YouTube. “You whore in your cheap fucking . . . cheap-ass plastic glasses and your hair up!” Writing on a Washington Post blog, Wendy Doniger, a Hinduism specialist at the University of Chicago Divinity School, topped them all: Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
So, yes. Feminists do claim to speak for all right thinking women. In the Marxoid sense, of course.
[Minnow:] It is after political, economic, and social equality and equivalent freedoms with men …
“social equality” and “equivalent freedoms” cannot possibly be in the same sentence. Unless, of course, you think that women and men are equal in every regard.
Good luck with that.
[Steve2:] Would she be happier following the usual feminist advice and going out to work and putting the kiddies in a nursery? She doesn’t think so.
[Minnow:] Is she pleased to have the choice? Have you asked her? Would she prefer you to make these choices for her?
[Minnow:] If anyone wants to gauge Delingpole’s grasp of science, here is talking to an actual scientist. It is fun.
At the risk of derailing this thread …
The question put to Delingpole was completely off point. It ran so wide of what climate “science” actually is that only co-religionists could fail to see it. Argument by analogy is almost always a mistake: it is very likely to both be mistaken and to confuse. Just so here. It is astonishing that your “scientist” could pose that analogy with a straight face. It is so wrong, inappropriate, and foolish that the only one bemerded by it is the bozo asking the question.
Yes, BTW, those are scare quotes, and here’s why: in order for something to fall within the realm of rational inquiry — which is what science is — that something must have deductive consequences. Naturalistic Evolution is a scientific theory because, in order for it to describe reality, certain things must follow: the Earth must be very old; reproductively isolated populations must diverge; heritability must be particular, etc. IIRC, Evolutionary theory has something like 28 such deductive consequences.
What are climate “science’s” deductive consequences? I’ll bet you can’t name even one.
To wit. Climate “science” assured has long assured us that the models sufficiently mimic the actual climate that they can discern the impact of increased CO2, and therefore predict the consequences.
Then reality bit. Global temperature has flatlined for more than a decade. If it continues to do so for no more than another five years, then every model will have been shown completely incompetent; by now, only almost all of them are.
Well, the answer is obvious. The deep oceans have been absorbing the heat.
Okay, fine. Let’s take that as read. Doing so, unfortunately, means that the basis for selling warmenism was completely wrong. Every model, which is what passes for science, completely left out a factor so huge that it canceled out every model’s prediction.
AGW isn’t science, it is religion.
dicentra,
10) Huffiness… I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest,
I have noticed a tendency to cultivate anger or at least the pretence of it, however incongruous, or to miss its absence, as if it were a credential, something to display. As one of Laurie’s groupies put it, “I kind of long for the pure, uncomplicated political anger I felt in my early twenties. Anger now is… complicated.”
As a mood of choice, a way one might wish to feel an awful lot of the time, it’s a little odd. Not exactly congenial to clarity and moral proportion.
Though maybe that’s the point.
(I really need to re-read before posting …)
[Minnow:] Is she pleased to have the choice? Have you asked her? Would she prefer you to make these choices for her?
My wife left a teaching career to stay home with our two kids. Her choice. Whenever I heard her talking about it to her women friends, those who couldn’t do that, everyone of them, expressed envy.
Nearly all of the women I know would far rather be inwardly directed: queen of their domains and full time mothers when their kids are young. Which doesn’t come as a surprise to those of us who believe in evolution. Yet feminists denigrate the very things that are innate to female nature.
That is part and parcel of leftist thinking, of course. To progressives, blank slaters all, there is no such thing as human nature.
Here is the nearly unspeakable truth. Women, compared to men, are highly specialized. There are a great, great many things men can do that women either can not, or will not. There are exactly two things women can do that men can’t, and one of them is, thanks to men, optional.
Feminists will not take that on board.
(For the record, my wife is pleased to have had the choice. I know, because I asked. She is perfectly happy to have me deal with all kinds of things for her: car and house maintenance; paying bills; doing the taxes; figuring out why the computer is doing that; etc.)
While I concede that feminism has won some worthwhile battles, all the low-hanging fruit of patriarchal oppression was plucked long ago, at least in progressive western societies, and today’s feminism has to invent absurd slights to crusade against, or invent false fronts (e.g. sexual assault on US campuses).
As for the supposed “rape culture” I see little evidence of that where I live. The incidence of rape in democratic western societies is probably the lowest it has been in any time in human history. While rape is deplorable, so are many other violent crimes.
As others have observed, there doesn’t seem to be much attention given to the status of the sisterhood in, um, most middle eastern countries.
Finally, a questions for Minnow: would you agree with Dworkin’s characterisation of marriage as “legalised rape”, or do we just tippie-toe around the ridiculous pronouncements to get to the “good stuff”?
It is a fine book (though I don’t remember there being much in it about Emer-style ‘defunct social mores’).
Thanks for the corrections, memory can be so treacherous. There is a fairly lengthy discussion of postcolonial and similar approaches to Shakespeare in the book, the best I have read. Worth taking another look.
Absolutely. The feminist hatred of Margaret Thatcher – and it was pure, dripping hatred, not just criticism or disagreement – seemed to be amplified because she was a woman.
Feminist attitudes towards Thatcher were divided. Some hated her, others praised her mightily. Julie Burchill for example was a Stalinist, a feminist and a massive Thatcher booster. Teresa May is another feminist who is no Thatcher hater. There are many more. Some of them are men.
No, true. But they are all mostly communists.
A quick trip to the Middle East will disabuse you of this idea.
“social equality” and “equivalent freedoms” cannot possibly be in the same sentence. Unless, of course, you think that women and men are equal in every regard.
I do think that men and women are equal in every regard, just as I I think white men and black men are equal in every regard. Don’t you?
For the record, my wife is pleased to have had the choice. I know, because I asked.
Amazing what you learn when you ask. I am glad she has the choice too. That is thanks to feminism.
Finally, a questions for Minnow: would you agree with Dworkin’s characterisation of marriage as “legalised rape”, or do we just tippie-toe around the ridiculous pronouncements to get to the “good stuff”?
Being a feminist does not commit you to agreeing with everything that every other feminist has ever said. It’s like being a Republican, or anything else.
Greeting Minnow!
I’m not sure if you’re old enough to remember the 1980’s, but no… no… just, no.
Feminists weren’t divided at all on Mrs Thatcher. You’ve cited two fringe dissenting opinions, one from a sometimes delightful controversialist who wrote for the Daily Mail, and one from a Tory MP.
Granted, opinions on the great lady have mellowed somewhat since she left office 24 years ago and has since died, but while she was in office feminist reactions to her were much like the recent hate campaign against Sarah Palin.
Thank God we didn’t have social media in the 1980’s.
“you can’t be a Conservative and a feminist, because it’s all about equality and fairness” – Harriet Harman
Thanks for clarifying: we do indeed tippie-toe around the ridiculous pronouncements to get to the “good stuff”.
Feminists weren’t divided at all on Mrs Thatcher. You’ve cited two fringe dissenting opinions, one from a sometimes delightful controversialist who wrote for the Daily Mail, and one from a Tory MP.
They were. I have cited two opinions from two opposing ‘wings’ of feminism, but we could find many more. It is salience bias that makes you think differently.
Thanks for clarifying: we do indeed tippie-toe around the ridiculous pronouncements to get to the “good stuff”.
No, it is as I said. You can be a feminist and not think that everything every feminist has said is right. In that regard feminism is the same as, er, everything. In fact you will be obliged to disagree wit some things because feminism, like every political movement, is full of disagreements. I don’t think this is a difficult idea to grasp.
Hi Minnow –
You are a card. So there’s a Thatcherite wing of feminism now? 🙂
http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300×300/52841624.jpg
Feminist attitudes towards Thatcher were divided. Some hated her, others praised her mightily… There are many more.
Half a dozen supportive quotes from lefty feminists of the time should be easy to find then.
Minnow,
Thanks for the corrections, memory can be so treacherous.
You’re welcome. Why, by the way, do you think the title ‘horrible’? (Either the correct one I provided or the one you thought it had…)
Svh – I think I’ve found them.
http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300×300/52841764.jpg
Half a dozen supportive quotes from lefty feminists of the time should be easy to find then.
Lefties at the time did not generally support Thatcher (with exceptions like Julie Burchill). But feminists like Louise Mensch, Gillian Shepherd, Teresa May etc are not always of the left. So there was a divide.
You’re welcome. Why, by the way, do you think the title ‘horrible’? (Either the correct one I provided or the one you thought it had…)
It sounds like the title of one of those ‘best bits of Shakespeare’ bathroom books or a piece of silly tub-thumping Shakespeare-industry stuff. Bate is well aware of the problem obviously.
Jeff,
And they resort to the most bizarre contortions of logic and abuse of statistics to justify themselves.
Speaking of which, did anyone spot this, from the Guardian a few days ago?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/tackling-the-gender-gap-is-simple-pay-women-more-money-end-of-story
Basically, having ignored all those tiresome statistics that seem to show the ‘gender pay gap’ may be a little more complicated than hitherto assumed, Ms Robertson has decided that the ‘problem’ has to be solved by simply paying women more. Now.
There is a solution to the gender pay gap in Australia, and possibly the world… Here it is: we simply pay women more money. Whether we do this by reducing women’s tax burden, providing them with an income supplement, or allowing women to personally shake down their male colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets, I don’t mind.
She does, to be fair, also say:
Of course, this kind of action sounds ludicrous to most people.
Tom Foster – or allowing women to personally shake down their male colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets
But what if you’re already married?
I do love the dialectical gymnastics of the pay gap myth though. It’s like global warming, no amount of actual evidence is enough to deter a true believer.
So there are these evil capitalists, right? Who want to make all the money. Women earn less than men, because sexism. Therefore, why isn’t female unemployment at zero and male unemployment much higher? Because the evil capitalists also hate money and would rather oppress women than hire cheap talented workers. Or something.
Anyway, this is all a terrible problem – it just is – and the solution is to give feminists money. Because cat treats and Buddy Holly glasses don’t come cheap.
“A ‘post colonial theorist’ and assistant professor of Irish Performance Studies”
LOL
Hey Minnow, since “Being a feminist does not commit you to agreeing with everything that every other feminist has ever said”, can you name a feminist that you do, generally, agree with so we can discuss her?
How about Greer, since you implied near the start of the thread that her radical views were now pretty much mainstream?
David wrote:
I have noticed a tendency to cultivate anger or at least the pretence of it, however incongruous, or to miss its absence, as if it were a credential, something to display.
So… they’re Sith?
JL, I agree with a lot of what Greer has said but I find her recent mysticism a bit of a turn off. I like Caitlin Moran. What she says generally makes sense to me. I like Julie Burchill too, although I often disagree with her conclusions she is usually right about everything on the way to them. But as ith anything else, the thing is to find ideas that you think are right, not leaders to follow.
Rob –
You’re on my enemies list!
But as with anything else, the thing is to find ideas that you think are right, not leaders to follow.
Actually, not event that. Ideas you think are interesting or useful.
[Minnow:] I do think that men and women are equal in every regard, just as I think white men and black men are equal in every regard. Don’t you?
Not being blind to reality, of course I don’t.
Other than equal before the law, I can’t think of any particular regard where men and women and women are anything like equal.
So we can have equivalent freedoms — equality before the law, or social equality, but not both. That is where the coercion to obtain outcomes nature will not provide comes in.
[Minnow:] Amazing what you learn when you ask. I am glad she has the choice too. That is thanks to feminism.
You do realize you are pushing hard on an open door, don’t you?
Of course she is glad she has the choice. She also resents that mainstream feminism has long and loudly denigrated that choice.
[Tom Foster:] Speaking of which, did anyone spot this, from the Guardian a few days ago?
I try to get around, making sure I take in viewpoints with which I don’t agree. Even granting inherent generosity towards my intellectual compatriots, I don’t think I ever see anything from the individualist/conservative/right that is nearly as addled, insulting to logic, divorced from reality, blinkered, or self-satirizing as what routinely issues from the collectivist/progressive/left.
The clip Minnow directed us to indicting Delingpole is just one example. The “gotcha” question was an absolute insult to logic, so divorced from reason that Delingpole was left slack jawed. Only a progressive could find that dispositive in anyway. Anyone else who hasn’t been completely deprived of reason would see that as nonsense on stilts. Surely you do, Minnow, right?
Just so with the Guardian travesty. It is wrong on so many levels that there aren’t enough hours in a day to get through them all. Here is the ultimate irony: progressives, by definition, are entitled, through their brilliance, to tell all the rest of us how to live our lives. Yet so often their utterances plumb stupidity’s Stygian depths; this woman shouldn’t be out of the house unsupervised. (One example, of which I have only first hand knowledge to go on: in my occupation, women earn exactly the same amount as men, but make considerably less. That dribbling fool can’t begin to ascertain the difference.)
(David, sorry, I gooned up a tag. My head hangs in shame.)
Oh for the love of all that is good and holy, when will I learn to use Preview?
“allowing women to personally shake down their male colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets”
We already do that, to the extent that women spend about four times as much money as men, despite earning a little less. Women earn less because they can afford to, because we have have extensive formal and informal systems of redistribution of wealth from men to women.
As for “rape culture”, that’s just the latest feminist attempt to re-phrase “all men are rapists” in such a way that people will actually accept it. The last attenpt was “Shroedinger’s rapist”, which didn’t catch on because only nerds knew what it was referring to, and they all pointed out that it wasn’t a very good analogy to the “Schroedinger’s cat” thought experiment.
So we can have equivalent freedoms — equality before the law, or social equality, but not both. That is where the coercion to obtain outcomes nature will not provide comes in.
We can have both. You haven’t explained why you think that is impossible. Women and men are equal in every regard. Why do you think they aren’t? Of course women and men are not the same. But then, neither are any two men, but we consider them equals, morally and politically.
Nature won’t provide, period. That is why, thankfully, we do not live in a natural state any more.
The clip Minnow directed us to indicting Delingpole is just one example. The “gotcha” question was an absolute insult to logic, so divorced from reason that Delingpole was left slack jawed.
It wasn’t a ‘gotcha’ question. Delingpole was arguing that consensus is irrelevant in science while the Nobel-prize-winning scientist was arguing that it isn’t. That was the subject at hand. Nurse presented a simple and obvious analogy to make his case and it was immediately clear that Delingpole had never before considered the question. If he had, he would have had a response. In other words, it was obvious that Delingpole had not for a moment considered the meanings of the words he was using and was just parroting something he had read somewhere on the interwebs. I actually felt sorry for Paul Nurse in that clip, he had obviously expected a fight with someone with a bit of heft and then was left looking like he was beating up a toddler. He was clearly embarrassed.
Minnow – Women and men are equal in every regard.
Then how can women be oppressed?
Mission Accomplished, feminists. Your work here is done. 🙂