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.
“Brave”, they said – in their best Humphrey Appleby voice I imagine.
When confronted with the extremist rhetoric of feminists — vehement denunciation of males, condemnation of heterosexuality, claims that men (collectively) oppress and victimize women (collectively) in ways comparable to the Holocaust — the average woman is understandably startled
The worst adverts for feminism are feminists.
The worst adverts for feminism are feminists.
Like Christians. But it was interesting watching Jacobson’s recent BBC4 prog about the Australians and seeing all that footage of Germaine Greer from the 60s and 70s. She was always being presented then as an exotic of one kind or another, sometimes a splendidly strange creature but just as often as dangerous and/or absurd. But now she would seem entirely ordinary. Every woman talks and acts like that and it just doesn’t seem exotic any more.
Every woman talks and acts like that and it just doesn’t seem exotic any more.
Every woman talks and acts like radfem lesbians denouncing ‘PIV’ sex? Okay…
She has boyfriends?
Every woman talks and acts like that and it just doesn’t seem exotic any more.
Germaine Greer, 1968.
The worst adverts for feminism are feminists.
I think that’s probably true (and yes, for a lot of things). And while all kinds of political movements attract nutters, some seem to attract nutterdom more than others. Among some, there’s a particularly acute in-group dynamic, in which competitive extremism establishes one’s credentials as “radical” and “authentic.” The more gaspworthy and counterfactual one’s pronouncements, the more status points accrue. An obvious modern example being Ms Laurie Penny and her tens of thousands of followers, few of whom seem troubled by her standard of argument.
If, for instance, you look at the key figures of British feminism during the 1970s and early 80s, they’re an odd bunch, to say the least. There’s the slavishly Marxoid Sheila Jeffreys, who appears to think only in terms of competing “classes” and churns out reams of bald assertion. Things like, “Male supremacy is centred on the act of sexual intercourse, justified by heterosexual practice.” Or, “Feminists who sleep with men are collaborating with the enemy.” Or, “All feminists can and should be lesbians. We define a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.”
Her output has changed little over the decades and seems laughably antiquated, as if she and we still lived in the 1950s. And despite a changed world, and despite a lack of supporting argument, her output is still quite shrill and relentlessly adamant. And this chronically unhappy woman, to whom logic is apparently a stranger, nonetheless found employment at the University of Melbourne, teaching “political science.” Those lucky, lucky kids.
The sour and fanciful dogmatism of Julie Bindel will be familiar to regular readers, though it’s worth remembering that Linda Bellos, mentioned here, was so enlightened by feminism that she abandoned her own children to “be political” in a separatist lesbian commune, as one does, before rising to prominence as the Big Feminist Cheese of Lambeth Council.
Colourful, yes. But they’re not exactly representative of any women I know.
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. It is that old joke of the two-frame cartoon that shows a teacher talking to a boy student in the first frame: ‘My god but you are bad at maths’, and to a girl student in the second frame: ‘My god but women are bad at maths’.
You shouldn’t ask them to be representative of women.
The point being that the figures above repeatedly claimed that their own, somewhat unusual perspectives were – or should be – those of “women” – as a “class.”
David – welcome back!
Emer O’Toole’s thoughts still fascinate and tantalise me, like the plastic flowers my cat keeps trying to stalk and eat.
Her stance isn’t particularly original though, it’s standard stuff in anthropology courses apparently. About 15 years ago I was at dinner with a couple of young executives from a major oil company which I shall not name, but whose initials spell Bum Pasta. During the small talk, I found that one of them had studied anthropology at Oxbridge or UCL (I forget which, but it was one of the “good” universities).
So I said something like “well, that’s an interesting background for an oil industry guy, but I suppose an oil company is basically just like an advanced tribe.”
I’m something of an expert on faux pas and this, apparently, was a significant one.
“Oh no!”, my dining companion exclaimed, with an aggrieved tone as if I had suggested a threesome with him and Wee Jimmy Krankie “you can’t say that! There’s no such thing as one culture being more advanced than any other!”
Well, he knew his colleagues best, so if he thought they were no more advanced than a tribe of cannibals or Geordies, who was I to argue?
Anyway, Emer comes from the same sort of attitude factory:
She is scholar of theatre, film and performance, whose research examines the various influences – in terms of economics, politics, history, race, gender and class – that inform performances of Irishness in a globalized and globalizing world.
I bet she’s hilarious at parties.
But, not to be credentialist or anything, but I wonder what qualifies Ms O’Toole to examine anything in terms of economics or history, never mind the other stuff? Could it be her undergraduate course in Marxism 101?
Using postcolonial and Bourdieusian theory, her research asks questions about power, privilege, identity and culture.
Ah, yes. Always asking questions, but – Spoiler Alert! – already knowing the answer, which is that “neoliberalism” is bad, and we really ought to try Marxism for a change.
Dr. O’Toole teaches courses in the areas of Irish Theatre, Irish Film, and Irish Performance Studies. She is interested in working with graduate students who approach Irish cultural and political phenomena through the lens of performance
Down with this sort of thing!
Class theory means that there are certain structures in society that systematically benefit or disbenefit groups of individuals, not that individuals in the groups are necessarily alike in other ways. Linda Bellos, for example, understood that she and Thatcher had certain class similarities as women, but did not make the mistake of thinking that they were otherwise alike or that Bellos ‘represented’ Thatcher as a personality type. It’s fun making fun, and Bellos is a good target quite often but you might as well aim at the real think and not the convenient caricature. The real Bellos is daft enough.
You lot might be interested in this research, by the way.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457000
You’re welcome.
Minnow,
One more time: The point being that the figures above repeatedly claimed that their own, somewhat unusual perspectives were – or should be – those of “women” – as a “class.” They, not I, made claims of their being representative, either of feminists as a group or all womankind. Hence the scepticism.
[ Added: ]
If, for instance, Julie Bindel had said that she, as an individual, or as a lesbian, was aggrieved or oppressed because of this, that and the other, she might have attracted slightly less ridicule. But she didn’t. Instead, she presumed to speak for all womankind, claiming that every woman’s sexuality could be reversed by political decree. Ditto Sheila Jeffreys of “all feminists can and should be lesbians” fame.
Steve,
I’m going to have to borrow the term attitude factory.
David, you misunderstood them. They argued that women suffered certain systematic abuses, not that woman should or would like the same sorts of things. Their preferred policies for putting the abuses right weren’t everybody’s cup of tea, but they didn’t expect they would be. They didn’t even expect they would be every woman’s cup of tea (see Thatcher above).
Mind you, Bellos often claims that most of her way-out Lambeth policies are pretty mainstream now, and I think she may be right.
Minnow – “That is sort of the point about feminism, that women should be able to be individuals in the same way that men are”
Heh.
They don’t have much time for individual women – feminists, even – who wander off the Marxoid reservation.
Like Margaret Thatcher – roundly hated by feminists, many of whom denied that she was a Real Woman at all.
Or Sarah Palin. Or Christina Hoff Sommers. Or any woman who chooses to be a housewife.
They don’t have much time for individual women – feminists, even – who wander off the Marxoid reservation.
It is a weird misunderstanding of feminism that it commits women to liking all women equally. It doesn’t. It is after political, economic, and social equality and equivalent freedoms with men. of course some women will use those freedoms in ways that other women think are wrong. That is how freedom goes. It is like racial equality, you can be entirely for it as a black person, without thinking you must therefore vote Obama. This stuff isn’t really that hard if you give it the mental effort. I am sure you believe that all men of all races deserve the same freedoms and should be equal before the law etc, etc. But you still think that some men are arseholes, right?
David, you misunderstood them.
No, I don’t think I did. You may want to watch Vanessa Engle’s excellent Angry Wimmin documentary, linked here, in which the ladies in question, and others, recount their own words and what they believed. And in some cases still do.
This stuff isn’t really that hard if you give it the mental effort.
Minnow The Lying Liar just can’t help himself, can he?
I saw and enjoyed the documentary and I remember them too. But they did not claim to represent all women in the way you imply. In fact, they spent most of their energies attacking other feminist groups it seems to me.
Hello, Anna. Another subtle and penetrating point. But perhaps I am being unfair and you have just expended too much of your energy defending Jimmy Savile to find any for here.
‘Well, he knew his colleagues best, so if he thought they were no more advanced than a tribe of cannibals or Geordies…’
Erm, Steve – I’m a Geordie. I’ll just leave that hanging there for a moment to make you feel bad. You HATER!
But perhaps I am being unfair and you have just expended too much of your energy defending Jimmy Savile to find any for here.
Minnow, I should point out that comments like that – lies, as Anna (rightly) puts it – aren’t doing you any favours. Bear in mind you’re here at my indulgence.
David, I understand that this is your gaff, your rules. But Anna’s accusation of lying referred to my comments about Linda Bellos, not Jimmy Savile. I don’t think she will contradict me on that score.
Minnow The Lying Liar,
But Anna’s accusation of lying referred to my comments about Linda Bellos, not Jimmy Savile.
Another lie.
A few threads ago you lied about me and what I’d said, remember? Then you lied about what other commenters said or meant. You didn’t take any of it back, did you?
Liar.
A few threads ago you lied about me and what I’d said, remember? Then you lied about what other commenters said or meant. You didn’t take any of it back, did you?
No, I didn’t tell any lies. And your comment appeared before I made any reference to Jimmy Savile, so that could not have been a lie. This is not the p[lace for a personal spat, if you say that you now accept that Jimmy Savile was a vicious sex offender, I will accept that you are no longer a defender of his (we all make mistakes) and apologise.
Minnow,
No, I didn’t tell any lies.
I think this was the example of dishonesty that annoyed Anna, and I can see why. And you’ve done much the same thing to someone, at least once, on just about every long thread you’ve taken part in.
I don’t have the time or inclination to play referee, so I suggest you try quoting what people here actually say, rather than paraphrasing them wildly, in the most perverse and self-serving way possible. Trust me, you’ll get along much better with the locals, and with your glorious host.
David – 🙂
Minnow – I’m less interested in what people say they believe than what their behaviour indicates they actually believe.
Cos if you ask them, everybody believes in Good and Righteousness and Fairness and Justice and all that. Even jihadis and Stasi informants and the cast of Hollyoaks.
So, feminists. The boilerplate is all about equality and fluffy kittens. The reality is savage, festering hatred, widespread mental illness, and suffocating conformity. Which is not surprising given that their ideology is a ramshackle cut-and-shut of Marxism and Daddy Issues.
If you claim to believe that “women should be able to be individuals in the same way that men are”, then shriek like Donald Sutherland in that remake of Body Snatchers when you come across a woman exercising her individuality in a way you ideologically disapprove of, then your stated belief is dishonest.
The entire premise of feminism is wrong, based as it is on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, of biology, and of economics. It’s why they so often find themselves wandering up intellectual blind alleys, like claiming we have a terrible “rape culture” when the facts explain otherwise. Or claiming the reason men are physically stronger than women is down to sexism and not biology. Or claiming that women are brainwashed into desiring sex with men.
The “you go, girl!” equality stuff is for external consumption only. Womens Studies degree programmes are not spending three years telling impressionable young women that they’re equal to men.
Tom Foster – I don’t hate Geordies! Some of my best friends are Geordie and P.J. and Duncan from Byker Grove are a credit to your race.
David, I try to paraphrase honestly and you really can’t argue the toss without interpreting what your opponents are arguing, but, again, I try to do it honestly. What I don’t do is lie. I think Anna’s accusation of lying is the worst dishonesty, to be honest. I note her silence on Savile’s criminal past, en passant, and I think others will too.
I don’t want to prolong it though, it is just provoking when you are insulted to your cyber-face.
I note her silence on Savile’s criminal past,
How criminal was it exactly ? We don’t know, he was never brought to trial and every accusation since is just that, an accusation, not a conviction. Some of the claims are quite obviously fantasy and you are in no better a position than anyone else to say how much of a criminal he really was.
I note her silence on Savile’s criminal past, en passant, and I think others will too.
You’re doing it again, Minnow.
Minnow – I’m less interested in what people say they believe than what their behaviour indicates they actually believe.
This is what some Marxists characterise as false consciousness versus real consciousness.
So, feminists. The boilerplate is all about equality and fluffy kittens. The reality is savage, festering hatred…
But who really wants to wind back the clock to the pre-feminist age? I don’t think you do. So in this case your revealed preference undermines your stated beliefs, no?
If you claim to believe that “women should be able to be individuals in the same way that men are”, then shriek like Donald Sutherland in that remake of Body Snatchers when you come across a woman exercising her individuality in a way you ideologically disapprove of, then your stated belief is dishonest.
No, there is absolutely no contradiction. I genuinely think that everybody should be equal and free top express whatever views they hold, etc, etc, but still think that the world is a much a sadder place for having James Delingpole in it and will happily denounce him at every opportunity.
like claiming we have a terrible “rape culture” when the facts explain otherwise.
There is something like a rape culture, or has been. I watched a Spanish TV show from the 70s just the other day (Curro Jimenez, since you asked) in which a woman is taught a lesson by being raped. She was provoking it of course, then she learned she wanted it and married her rapist (actually, it is pretty clear that she had manipulated him into it so that she could marry him). The show cut short of the actual event, obviously, but there was no doubt what was going on. First she had to say ‘sorry’ to him in an appropriately contrite way, unlearning her haughtiness. This sort of thing was quite common when I was growing up. I don’t think it is beyond belief that it lingers on.
How criminal was it exactly ? We don’t know, he was never brought to trial and every accusation since is just that, an accusation, not a conviction.
To my mind it is beyond a doubt that Savile was a criminal and that he attacked and exploited many people, but we can disagree. Anna does, for example, and I think her extensive writings on it are defences of Savile. What else should they be if they are defending him from his accusers? If Anna wants to disagree with that she can (she may have changed her mind or may claim that she is just sitting on the fence). But I don’t think it can be called a ‘lie’.
No, there is absolutely no contradiction. I genuinely think that everybody should be equal and free top express whatever views they hold, etc, etc, but still think that the world is a much a sadder place for having James Delingpole in it and will happily denounce him at every opportunity.
Well now since you mention the great Dellers let’s take a look at the way a hegemonic ideology, in this case CAGW has captured the narrative and seeks to exclude all dissenting, sorry ‘denialist’, voices. The role of our own dear BBC in this process should certainly not be overlooked, as a prime example of an organisation which has been completely captured by people who make proud boasts about free expression and behave entirely differently.
Anna does, for example, and I think her extensive writings on it are defences of Savile.
I never said anything about Savile. I’ve never mentioned him. Are you (a) dim and confused, (b) a troll, or (c) a liar?
I never said anything about Savile. I’ve never mentioned him. Are you (a) dim and confused, (b) a troll, or (c) a liar?
I may be confused. I thought you were Anna raccoon of the blog of that name because I had thought you had linked to your blog from here. Are you a different Anna?
Well now since you mention the great Dellers let’s take a look at the way a hegemonic ideology, in this case CAGW has captured the narrative and seeks to exclude all dissenting, sorry ‘denialist’, voices.
You think that’s bad! Look at how the hegemonic ideology of evolution through natural selection has captured the narrative and sought to exclude all ‘denialist’ voices. These days you can hardly hold public office if you stand against it. A scandal.
To my mind it is beyond a doubt that Savile was a criminal and that he attacked and exploited many people, but we can disagree.
There you go again, sounding all reasonable and tolerant and managing to subtly suggest that I think Saville was probably OK. Still I expect you are only paraphrasing so that’s fine really, to your mind.
Are you a different Anna?
Yes, you dickhead. I’m the one you lied about.
If anyone wants to gauge Delingpole’s grasp of science, here is talking to an actual scientist. It is fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU
Yes, you dickhead. I’m the one you lied about.
No, Anna, if you are not Anna Raccoon (of the blog), you are the one I mad a mistake about. Apologies for which. (But really, learn the difference.)
There you go again, sounding all reasonable and tolerant and managing to subtly suggest that I think Saville was probably OK.
Wha …? I just said that we could disagree. I didn’t say we did, just that we could, reasonably, since you raised the question of Savile’s criminality. If we don’t disagree, well, good.
But this subject is getting out of hand, I think I will drop it.
Hullo Minnow –
This is what some Marxists characterise as false consciousness versus real consciousness.
I think “revealed preferences” is a closer fit. False consciousness implies the proles have been tricked or brainwashed.
But who really wants to wind back the clock to the pre-feminist age? I don’t think you do.
Why would you think that? I *like* Mad Men. Come to think of it, my household is what you might call traditional, I work and pay the bills, my wife looks after the kids and irons my shirts and makes me food. It works for us, and there’s not a copy of The Female Eunuch in sight.
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.
the world is a much a sadder place for having James Delingpole in it
JD is totes amazeballs, I like him a lot. He’s the Elvis of environmental journalism.
There is something like a rape culture, or has been. I watched a Spanish TV show from the 70s just the other day
So “never mind the crime stats, look at this here Dago TV show from 40 years ago?”, eh? 🙂
I saw a programme where a boy had to put on a strange helmet and be guided around a bizarre fantasy world by a sketchy older man called Treguard.
So I can safely say we have a magic culture in this country.
I think “revealed preferences” is a closer fit. False consciousness implies the proles have been tricked or brainwashed.
No, it doesn’t, or shouldn’t. It just implies that our picture of the world may disguise from us the realities off our existence in ways that are very emotionally powerful. It isn’t far from ‘revealed preference’ but that has generally had the suggestion of semi-conscious dishonesty about it.
Why would you think that? I *like* Mad Men.
Me too, but given the chance you would not reproduce those social conditions would you?
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.
Is she pleased to have the choice? Have you asked her? Would she prefer you to make these choices for her?
JD is totes amazeballs, I like him a lot. He’s the Elvis of environmental journalism.
You mean moribund?
So “never mind the crime stats, look at this here Dago TV show from 40 years ago?”, eh? 🙂
‘Rape culture’ is not about crime statistics. It is a different thing. You may disagree with the theories, but it you might as well know what they mean first. We could have a rape free society but a persistent rape culture, in theory.
Ha ha ha. Rape culture in a rape free society. It’s not really much of a culture then really?
If anyone wants to gauge Delingpole’s grasp of science, here is talking to an actual scientist. It is fun.
I made no mention of science, my point was about the CAGW narrative, essentially leftist in its anti consumerist pro Green position. It is entirely political and has little to do with science. What are Al Gore’s qualifications to pontificate on climate science if it comes to that. By seeking to draw an analogy, something I expected, with creationism you show that you have absolutely no interest in or undestanding of the sceptical position.
They don’t have much time for individual women – feminists, even – who wander off the Marxoid reservation.
Like Margaret Thatcher – roundly hated by feminists, many of whom denied that she was a Real Woman at all.
This. So much this. So much of not only feminism, but the rest of the “diversity” ideology, seems strongly infused by identity politics in that you’re supposed to act a certain way based on which genetic group you’re a member of, and woe betide anybody who doesn’t act that way, such as Thatcher of Clarence Thomas.
The “Not a Real Woman” stuff is not just vile, it’s immoral in that it’d deliberately designed to deny people their individuality.
Wha …? I just said that we could disagree. I didn’t say we did, just that we could, reasonably, since you raised the question of Savile’s criminality.
You said this;
To my mind it is beyond a doubt that Savile was a criminal and that he attacked and exploited many people, but we can disagree.
I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to infer that you were suggesting that I didn’t think Saville had abused people, when my whole point was that neither of us know and yet you claim that it is beyond a doubt, thus occupying the moral highground, which is what makes you so bloody irritating. Your carelessness with language and the cavalier manner in which you pass off your own assumptions as the opinions of others is what has led you to drop a clanger with Anna, I don’t suppose it will stop you though.
Christopher Snowden on the BBC and its funding:
when my whole point was that neither of us know and yet you claim that it is beyond a doubt
Exactly, I said that to my mind is was beyond a doubt, but we can disagree. Which we seem to.
By seeking to draw an analogy, something I expected, with creationism you show that you have absolutely no interest in or understanding of the sceptical position.
I do understand the ‘sceptical’ position but it has nothing to do with science. All the science claims have been thoroughly refuted. Over and again. Global Warming science is every bit as robust as evolutionary science. That is why the analogy is apt.
Ha ha ha. Rape culture in a rape free society. It’s not really much of a culture then really?
Well, no, it’s not much of a culture. But sadly we don’t live in a rape free country, and my point was a theoretical one.