How Today's Feminism Is Making Young Women Feel And Be Seen As Less Than Equal To Men
Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers at The Dartmouth Review by Jack F. Mourouzis.
Hoff Sommers' response to his very first question explains the problem with feminism today:
The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Much of your writing has to do with the warped state of modern feminism. Can you explain how it came to this? Where does the modern movement have its origins, and why is it the way it is today?
Christina Hoff Sommers (CHS): I am a strong supporter of classical equity feminism -- the sort of feminism that won women the vote, educational opportunities, and many other freedoms.
But on today's campus, equity feminism has been eclipsed by fainting-couch feminism. Fainting-couchers view women as psychically fragile and prone to trauma. They demand trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro-aggression monitoring. Their primary focus is not equality with men--but rather protection from them.
As an equity feminist from the 70s, I see this as a setback for feminism--and for women.
There was a battle for the soul of feminism in the 80s and 90s. The wrong side won. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (precursors to today's fainting-couchers) sought to protect women from the ravages of an implacable, all-encompassing patriarchy.
Never mind that no such patriarchy existed. Another group, known as sex-positive or libertarian feminists, focused on female freedom, personal responsibility, and pleasure. They saw MacDworkinism (as it came to be called) as a reactionary social purity movement.
The libertarians had better arguments, but the MacDworkinites won most of the assistant professorships. Over the years, MacDworkinism has melded with "intersectionality." Today, undergraduate women are told (depending on their identities) that they are oppressed not only by sexism, but by racism, classism, ableism, etc.
Conceptually, the theory is muddled. For one thing it fights sexism and racism by classifying everyone according to sex and race. But at the highly privileged intersections of American higher education, the theory is all the rage.
For an equality feminist like myself, this is a sorry development. Our feminist foremothers viewed women as just as competent and mentally strong as men, so they fought and won a battle for equality.
Trigger warnings, safe spaces and identity theatrics betray that tradition, and treat women like fragile little birds in need of protection. I see too many talented, idealistic young women turning inward--away from a world that needs them.
We're creating victims, and a culture of victimhood, not empowering women.
I think it is high time to repeal the 19th Amendment. I do not wish to see such vulnerable creatures be subject to sufferage.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 1, 2017 5:48 AM
Hah. That's the direction in which this is pointing.
Amy Alkon at March 1, 2017 6:21 AM
They ventured out into the big world and found out that it's harsh and scary out there, responsibility is hard, and there's more failure than success. Many (most?) will never get past their initial shock and fear.
bkmale at March 1, 2017 6:58 AM
Fainting couchism is a shortcut to unearned power. You don't have to be right, just cry that you are oppressed.
As an older white male who is successful, I can assure you that no one held the door open for my success. There were setbacks, crazy bosses, indifference, being stone-walled for promotions, gossip, the 2009 recession. Several places I used to work are now vanished. If you are told over and over that any bad thing is the patriarchy, then the bad things you will certainly encounter will just freak you out and confirm this false belief. I'm a pretty tough guy and I have had my share of sleepless nights.
I must say that the patriarchy is the most clever and insidious conspiracy ever, because it operates totally in secret, those promoting it and those benefiting from it are completely unaware of it, women are getting 60% of the college degrees and getting better grades in school. It is certainly the most mysterious and strangest conspiracy ever.
cc at March 1, 2017 11:25 AM
"Hah. That's the direction in which this is pointing."
No kidding. Postmodern feminism expects from society, and particularly the men in society, that they be the combination of provider, permissive dad, and biker boyfriend:
* Provider: Put food on the table, pay the rent, take care of the bills. Make so that the women is freed from having to think about finances.
* Permissive dad: "Lend" her money to party on. Let her stay out all night without asking questions. Ignore the alcohol and the drugs. Get DUI tickets fixed and go along and clean up her other messes behind her.
* Biker boyfriend: Protect her reputation, by threats and intimidation. Beat up any guy she had sex with that she's now embarrassed about, or any other guy that she doesn't think is of sufficiently high status as to be permitted to speak to her. Re-virginize her as needed.
Cousin Dave at March 2, 2017 7:06 AM
Permissive dad:
___________________________________
I'd love to see the evidence that shows that adults, as opposed to bratty children, are the ones demanding that dads raise BOTH sons and daughters permissively. If all parents forced girls AND boys to stay in supervised places until the teens had proven they could be trusted not to do anything illegal, unkind, or negligent (even when surrounded by near-criminal peers), I doubt anyone would object.
What's unfair, of course, is when girls are locked up while their parents let their sons run around because THEIR precious boys would never succumb to mob rule and do anything illegal...right? If girls grow up faster than boys, as a rule, all the more reason for boys to be more closely supervised and kept busy with activities that actually help other people - i.e., not sports, necessarily.
lenona at March 2, 2017 9:58 AM
Leave a comment