Follow by Email

Monday, October 31, 2016

One Russian feminist explains her problem with the feminism

Happy Halloween everyone! Like today is actually the 31s and we reached, finally, the destination.

On this particularly scary, but otherwise, lovely day (it was nice and sunny in the UK), I would like to come back to the term I introduced in my last post on feminism (In response to some latest feminist bullshit)


To try to define it in some kind of academic way, I would probably describe it as a ‘movement which fakes spirituality and feminism in order to make women who still care about the way they look, feel guilty about themselves’.  The word ‘chatte’ comes from French and means pussy, and humbly enough, I do think that it is an appropriate description of what is currently happening within the feminist movement.

In other words, it is feminism turning upon itself. As I explain it in my video I made today (WATCH ME TALKING!), on this beautiful Halloween day, there are currently 3 waves of feminism. I will spare you from the ordeal of going into the details and trying to describe each wave, as it is actually much easier to get a fork, put some spaghetti on it and roll it up.

This is what I was, as a matter of fact, trying to do in my video of today but it didn’t show because of the angle of my camera. And I will make a video as to why I hold my camera in this way (together with my students), because it is fucking a MOBILE PHONE, not a proper camera! So, I hold it the way it is supposed to be held, ok????

But back to feminism. While the researchers are still debating on the precise definition of each wave and what they mean (they, like, quite, obviously, don’t get it themselves), there is already a fourth wave in the making, which is perhaps, like, really, would fit into my anti-chatte definition perfectly well.

So, if I borrow one of the descriptions of this wave from Wikipedia (guilty as charged), it says that the fourth wave is: “Besides online feminism, the fourth wave has been associated with the increased focus on intersectionality, including the repudiation of trans-exclusionary radical feminism and a focus on solidarity with other social justice movements.”

WHAT???? Excuse me, I am an academic myself but when I see texts like that, I kind of get as to what might be wrong within some research in academia today, and why no one reads the treatises of academics apart from academics themselves.

I do get the combination of ‘radical feminism’ though and I just want to scream ‘NO’!!!! Enough of this shit, all right? Why not to go nice and easy back to the first wave and start things anew?

You see, I do still consider myself as a feminist (first wave) but I totally disagree with the latest attempt to take femininity out of women and ask men to slam doors into our faces. Personally, I do want to remain feminine and I think that we should re-introduce some chivalry in men, because otherwise, we will soon all march like robots, without recognising who is a man and who is woman, and then it won’t be just scary Halloween, but some kind of Nightmare from the Battle of Sexes. And I don’t want to end up there.
I rather stay where I am now, on this already scary Halloween day

1 comment:

Sean said...

So much to get your teeth into here. However, I will confine myself to one issue and that is how to reconcile patriarchal definitions of beauty as conveyed, propagated and reproduced by the beauty industry with female emancipation? In other words the institutions that produce the symbols that we see as feminine beauty are imposing standards of beauty on women therefore denying women the right to define their own meaning of feminine beauty or even reject this notion altogether.
Whilst it appears that you suggest that radical feminism "makes women feel guilty about caring about their looks". The counter argument is surely that by being complicit with patriarchal definitions without recourse to a feminist argument i.e how these images of beauty advances the socio-political-economic position of women presents at least a potential contradiction (i.e needs an explanation as to why it is not a contradiction).
The Beauty Myth by Naomi Woolf sets out this argument in much more detailed, although in my opinion not consistently persuasive terms.
Having said all that my thoughts on this would be emphatically rejected by many feminists as I am a man and therefore can have no notion of the subjectivity of women. However, I would suggest that there is in fact no subjectivity of women outside of an abstract notion. Otherwise are we to believe that the experience of being a woman is the same for Hilary Clinton as it is for example for a casual manual labourer on a zero hours contract?