A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 14:
It’s interesting that you would whip out the race card, because it always seems like in that Venn diagram of men and misogyny, if you wait long enough, racism always presents as another Eulerian circle. So does homophobia.
This is a straw man argument in that you are deliberately taking Gorf’s comment out-of-context in order to bash it. He didn’t mention “Uncle Tom” or ethnicity as a denigration. Every reasonable person can see he is illustrating how, as a potentially visible minority, you are behaving as subordinate sycophant and likely ignoring your firsthand experience with intolerance.
Neo feminism is largely populated by entitled women of the local privileged ethnicity in the First World, or essentially the visible majority. Yet, they harp on about discrimination as if they really know what systemic marginalization actually feels like. A case of those who were adults in the 1960’s maybe, but most of the millennial crowd that fill the ranks of Neo-feminism have no real concept of what hardcore prejudice feels like. That they still recycle myths like “the 23% wage gap” is telling of the dishonest “I’m a victim” mentality of “you go grrrrrrl” crowd.
Neo-feminists toss their spears of hate and run back to the cover of “all women”. Other special interest groups do the same. As long as you tell the world that somewhere someone biologically like you has been victimized, then all form of hostility and intolerance, by you, is a “justified” response.
Krantzstone Item 15:
I think the operative word in your comment is “historically”: like any Western political movement, the discourse in the past has often been heavily weighted in favour of white, cisgender and heterosexual people (not to mention able-bodied, upper middle class, etc.). And arguments can be made that ‘white feminism’ is still the dominant discourse in mainstream feminism, which would be one reason why women of colour (WoC) began ‘womanism’ to address those issues.
But intersectional feminism, the dominant form of modern (Fourth Wave) feminism, comes from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s ‘intersectionality theory’.
Well isn’t that telling?
Neo-feminism advocates recognized that most people could see they had lost credibility when the legislated “equal opportunity” was not yielding the “equal results” they were screeching about. To gain some contemporary credibility, the plan was to include other issues that are a product of other variables but can “intersect” with feminist agenda. Therefore any discrimination conveniently becomes part of feminism. Come on. We all see how that works.
Krantzstone Item 16:
It shows how feminism is not a monolith, and there are many different schools of thought within feminism, some of them diametrically opposed to one another, like trans-exclusionaryt radical feminism versus intersectional feminism, sex-worker-exclusionary feminism versus sex-positive feminism, etc.
Nice try. This is just a lightly veiled “no true Scotsman” defense. Basically, you are excusing any unfounded position of any given supporter of feminism as “not exactly my brand of feminism” and therefore not something to be justified.
The reality is that creating a nebulous definition with vague boundaries is just a convenient way to avoid recognizing the pervasive sexist and self-serving views of feminism in general. While there may be fifty shades of “grey”, it is still founded on a dark tint.
Krantzstone Item 17:
The mainstream is always slow to catch on compared to those who are the vanguard, leading edge theorists in the movement, so there are still some problematic forms of feminism which are given voice in news media like the Guardian (home to TERFs Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill), who are decidedly stuck within the Second Wave framework. Germaine Greer, once a leading (Second Wave) feminist activist has become increasingly irrelevant due to her similarly vile TERF and anti-sex-work views.
It’s ironic that so many MRAs parrot the arguments of faux-feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, not even knowing the difference between the various waves of feminism or the distinctions between them (or even the distinctions within the waves themselves), because if anything, the kind of feminism anyone of any sex and gender, but men particularly, should be able to relate to is Third/Fourth Wave* feminism because of its emphasis on intersectionality.
This is the exactly the type of subterfuge that any intolerant organization uses to dismiss any criticism of their movement. When it is convenient, they will distance themselves from extremists and claim that those zealots do not represent the “true” cause. All the while they create new definitions of their cause in hopes to make the description so mired in minutiae that one can always make a plea to ignorance. “Hey, you haven’t read the works of this person, or that person”, or “well, there’s a new school of thought”, etc…
What has been consistent through all brands of Neo-feminism is that of its fundamental sexist mantra. Trying to whitewash that is dishonest.
Krantzstone Item 18:
But Sommers isn’t a real feminist, she’s a right wing mouthpiece who bandwagonned on the nascent social conservatism and anti-feminism of GamerGate in order to pick up followers and try to remain relevant. As Butterflies and Wheels put it: “[Christina Hoff Sommers]’s basically just another Phyllis Schlafly without the religion.”
Martha Rampton of Pacific University Oregon points out that we are actually in the Fourth Wave, making a distinction between modern intersectional feminism of today versus the ‘Riot Grrls’ of the mid-to-late ’90s.
Yes. We all get the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It’s the same actor in a different costume. That is all.