Another good slam of Feministing

I was sent this link to a good blog post that further demolishes the ladies at feministing.com

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=122

There are some very good bits:

One source of these steaming shovelfuls is Feministing, a web site run by self-styled “feminist” writer Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism. While the site bills itself as a blog for young feminists, it is in fact a “me too” web page where Miss Valenti’s sycophantic friends and cultish followers get together to recite dogma, honor the sacraments, pledge their devotion and excommunicate or anathematize the unbelievers. Any who dare to disagree with or mock the more ridiculous dogma are branded heretics (or “assholes”) and abjured with the magic words “Fuck You!”, a devastating show of wit, no doubt.

And...

It is the act of pointing out that such thinking is harebrained that is unforgivable, according to what they call “Feminism 101″, the mere mention of which is believed by the faithful to counter all facts, reason and logic in much the same way that fundies counter all arguments with “The Bible says so!”. In fact, the denizens of Feministing draw “Feminism 101″ like Randolph Scott drew his six-shooter in his old Westerns, but like Scott’s revolver, it’s full of blanks.

But go and read it for more good stuff.

The article also raises some interesting points. At the beginning he raises a dictionary quote such as this one.

fem•i•nism –noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

And then goes on to basically say that people who agree with this should reasonably be called feminists. I agree that most decent people agree with these principles. And if that is the case, do we need a term for us? Or do we merely need to shame those who don’t believe these things. I.e. we call people who don’t believe in equality between the races racist, we don’t call people who do believe in equality between the sexes pro-race. It’s not needed.

And we don’t need the term feminism, by the same logic. But, I would also like to say that the modern feminist movement is a political movement that has been very successful in appropriating this definition for themselves. So much so that if you go and ask a good young woman who would call herself a feminist such as this, and you ask her why she is a feminist then she will say something along the lines of “because I believe in equality”. The irony is that if you truly believe in equality then you have to go against what the modern feminist movement believes.

Posted under: Gender Issues, Politics, Feminism
Posted on: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:39 AM
« Just disgusting... | Home | Do as I do Jessica valenti »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: John Dias on 6/4/2008 8:37 AM
    Gravatar
    To me, it's not about women having equal rights that grates the most. It's the fact that men bear responsibilities to provide and survive, and such responsibilities have never even been tasted by women to a significant degree. Feminists seem to resent the fact that women have not been given a chance to face the elements, or given credit when they have. They trumpet the independence of all women when even one woman makes the slightest accomplishment. Then they advocate equal "rights," which is just another way of saying political privileges enforced by state-sanctioned violence.

    If only these politicos could catch a glimpse of the immense burden that men have borne over the ages. Some women have tasted the bitter reality of fending for themselves -- and understandably long for the days when women were nurturers and men were providers. But those days of true gender balance are long gone.

    Today we have political rights in demand by those who feel entitled to the rights, but not obligated by the responsibilities (but who nevertheless expect equal capacity to assume such responsibilities if and when circumstances required). It's a mentality embraced by feminists for sure, but not just them. Every politico who swears blind allegiance to the State has embraced this entitlement to some extent.

    It's like a ship sinking at sea, and 500 of its passengers washing ashore a deserted island -- and their first order of business is to take a vote that everyone has the right to food, water, clothing, shelter, and of course a cell phone. Eventually, some day, it will become clear that somebody has been doing the work -- and God help us when that somebody (or those somebodies) simply stop working for the greater good of others. God help us when that happens.

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 2 and 5 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”