Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Agreeable Feminism

Currently in the sidebar, from Quillette: Are Contemporary Feminists Too Agreeable?
But, as a result of the success of the movement over the last half century, the social costs of identifying as a feminist have decreased. A large proportion of young Western women now describe themselves as feminists, with some surveys suggesting the figure may be as high as two thirds. Nowadays practically every politically engaged Left-leaning woman, along with a significant number of men, describes themselves as feminists, to the point that the feminist community and the progressive community have become essentially the same group. One of the effects of this is that the personality profile of feminists has changed.
I think there is some problem of defining terms in the article, so that there were sections where I thought "I would agree if you mean x, but disagree if you mean y" but on the whole I found it interesting.  The author is trying to separate feminism out from a hierarchical "more oppressed than thou" leftism which often does women as a class no favors.

You might read it twice.  I found it to be different as I was reviewing it to write about it here.


james said...

I'm not sure I can pin down what "feminist" means, but I think dci in the comments is on the right track. The "Second Wave" won, and the current crop were looking for some banner they could rally their troops around. "Intersectionality" suited. They get to stay being the interpreters of oppression, though with some push-back from the intersect-ees who want a share of the power pie themselves.

It is weird to watch this playing out. It all falls to bits the day a majority asks "So it sucks to be you. Who cares?"

stevo said...

I see all aspects (and waves) of feminism as a fundamental rejection of Christianity. Therefore I don't approve.

Grim said...

James’ point cuts against the logic of the piece, which is that newer feminists have laid down the disagreeableness (at least towards everyone but men, especially white men, especially straight men, especially ‘cis’ men, and very especially those who are the union of all of these). The piece suggests that these women are laying down the interests of their own class out of a desire to be agreeable to all the ‘down’ classes, even to the point that womens’ interests as such have no place in feminism because trans interests must come first.

James ‘ point is incisive: this posture also leaves them the arbiters of justice, and thus in a powerful social position. If they can translate that arbiter role into practical politics — as for example by using Title IX authorities via civil rights positions at colleges, but in the broader society — they could end up with a tyrannical authority. Losing a few sports matches pales in comparison.

So maybe they’re pursuing their own interest after all — not qua women, but qua members of this would-be woke feminist arbiter elite.