What is it with the Guardian lately?

[annwfyn]

I mean, really?

First we have Deborah Orr whittering about how the great flaw of feminism is that it doesn't accept that some women just want to have babies, and now apparently Caitlin Moran has written a book containing such great lines as "I don't think that women being seen as inferior is a prejudice based on male hatred of women. When you look at history" – achievements in arts, science, exploration, for instance – "it's a prejudice based on simple fact."

Is feminism's big flaw really that it is far too radical and mean and horrid and not accepting enough of a fifties model of femininity? Really?

I don't think I've felt quite so depressed since I first saw the ending of 'Basil the Great Mouse Detective'.

Comments

[trouble]

I did get as far as "Ban it? Feminism doesn't need to start BANNING pornography. It needs to start MAKING it." before I realised this was an entirely ridiculous account of reality. I mean, last I checked, the Feminist porn awards had been going on at Good For Her for over five years, and I assume they were not the first to come up with the idea.

It's really easy to say "Feminism! It's going terrible!" when your "research" apparently consists of ... well, I'm not sure. Plumbing the depths of people's stereotypes?

Honestly, the book sounds like a longer version of FFF.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

When you look at history" – achievements in arts, science, exploration, for instance – "it's a prejudice based on simple fact.

How can someone actually use this argument seriously without considering why women have historically been under-achievers in many areas? It's not because we all just sat about eating fucking bonbons.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. And I'm not sure what we're meant to take from this.

"Gee, I guess women are kind of crap. So, um, we should stop pressuring ourselves to be clever, and have careers, and wear sexy shoes (which men don't like anyway and..." and then I give up and can only assume she's going to progress to 'have babies' which is just almost infinitely depressing.

And I agree entirely with your point. If you take into account the extent to which the odds were stacked against great women, I think the number who did do amazing things (Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale, Ada Lovelace and many many more) is kinda incredible and says quite the opposite about the capabilities of women.

[eniel]

This kind of article makes me angry. Both of them.
Part of me agrees that yes, because previous generations of feminism have obtained so much, many of us (men and women) don't realize how important it is.
Part of me is livid to see someone blatantly forgetting about all the important women that were at the front of the scene (like Elizabeth Blackwell in the States), but maybe more importantly, those that came after. It's hard being a pioneer, but sometimes, it's even harder being the second person, because you don't have the element of surprise that helps you overcome obstacles. Not to mention the women of power who had a huge influence in Europe. Maybe we should introduce Ms Moran to the Hapsburgs ?
It's stances like these that unmake years of progress. Next thing you know, we'll all be told to stay at home making babies and crochetting doilies.

[ulaidhan.livejournal.com]

If feminism is used as a way to impose new limitations rather than to grant freedom of choice and opportunity, then yes, that is a problem. I'd be surprised if you'd never come across someone using what they claimed to be feminism as a reason to tell you how to live your life and - even more - what you +shouldn't+ be doing in it. I can certainly think of a range of self-professed feminist academics of my acquaintance who would have been horrified to find any modern woman purchasing a corset, for example. Similarly, I can think of a few who would be deeply disapproving of any independently-earning woman engaging in marriage.

The second quote is surely literally true - the view of women as inferior is not generally based upon +hatred+, but will far more often be a +prejudice+ based on fact. That still leaves full freedom for the +prejudice+ to be short-sighted, foolish, and plain wrong. The quote doesn't laud the view - indeed, it describes it in distinctly pejorative terms.

Perhaps the rest of the book lives up to your concerns, but on its own that quote seems to simply seek to remove +hatred+ as a motivator.

[chrisvenus]

Very well put. :)