David Thompson


Blog powered by Typepad

« Work in Progress | Main | Saving Us from Capitalism »

June 27, 2010



"doctrinaire feminists versus The Non-Leftist Other™"


But Amanda Marcotte told us non-lefty feminists are 'trying to oppress women' because they're evil.


And she's never wrong.



Any city that stands aside to photograph itself burning - deserves to.


“But Amanda Marcotte told us non-lefty feminists are ‘trying to oppress women’ because they’re evil.”

It’s pretty much Marcotte’s standard meme and she’s far from alone in this particular line of cretiny. Doctrinaire groups need their apostates. Denouncing the unclean is the reward for all that piety. Plus it helps divert attention from all those bothersome in-group contradictions.

Tina Brown, for instance, recently described female Republicans who won nominations as “a blow to feminism.” Apparently, successful, self-made women aren’t feminists – indeed can’t be feminists – unless they have views that correspond with those of Tina Brown.


Martha Nussbaum criticised some academic feminism for its indifference to improving prospects for women in Afghanistan. The comical “post-colonial theorist” Gayatri Spivak promptly denounced Nussbaum as a “flag waver” on an imperialist “civilising mission.” A view shared by Melanie Butler, who claims such efforts are based in “Orientalist discourse” and “oppressive narratives.”


Feministing’s Jessica Valenti regards women who favour small government and dislike PC racial discrimination as “anti-feminists” who “make their career[s] trying to roll back women’s rights.” If a woman has reservations about abortion, she cannot be admitted to The Righteous Collective. Having dared to criticise the gross factual inaccuracies of some academic feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers is denounced as a “faux feminist” who “fight[s] against women’s rights across the board.”


To regard such women as even remotely feminist is, according to Ms Valenti, “fucking insulting.” For Valenti, feminism must be a “social justice movement,” which apparently entails ignoring valid criticism and subscribing to a package of leftist boilerplate. By Ms Valenti’s rather narrow definition, classical liberals and advocates of individual liberty would be excluded from any claim to feminism, along with most of the female population.


And the absurd, rather obnoxious Judith Butler makes the same kind of noise, claiming “bona fide feminism” must mean adherence to a specific ideological outlook including membership of the so-called “anti-war” movement. Which, judging by Ms Butler’s own statements, seems to mean support for Hamas and Hizballah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.”


All things considered, that’s quite a lot to ask.

Simen Thoresen

We've had a few bits on Judith Buthlers 'queer nationalism' -thing in our news as well. Yesterday, this years gay parade went through the most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods in Oslo, to show that 'this is our city', and to demonstrate that they were not afraid of the Muslims - at least not in daytime, and when in superior numbers.

Our far-left papers referred to Butlers 'queer nationalism' in this context, where obviously all minorities should band together because their only real grievance is with the majority (presumably, the white, middle-aged, male, heterosexual one), and that they thus have a common cause.

In my view, minorities are defined by their exclusiveness and not their inclusiveness. The grow in conviction by shedding the less pure member, and so any attempt to join minorities together to a meta-minority group is essentially bound to fail. Not in the least because the compete amongst each other for the 'most worthy minority' label, which would get it the largest amount and value of concessions from the majority.

Judith (say our papers) wants the queers to embrace the Muslims, and to find a common front for minority'ness. The Muslims of course, have a thing against being embraced by queers.

This would have to end bad, if someone took her seriously.



"Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world." Mahmoud Al-Zahar (Hamas), 2007

"The world will submit to Islam." Khaled Mash'al (Hamas), 2008

"Allah willing, the moment will come when their property will be destroyed and their sons annihilated, until not a single Jew or Zionist is left on the face of the Earth." (Hamas Friday Sermon, 2009)


"Understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important."

Judith Butler, 2006



“This would have to end bad, if someone took her seriously.”

Taking Ms Butler seriously is more than I can do. In a saner world, it would be more than any thinking person could manage. Not least because of the quotes above. (For which, thanks, rjmadden.)


You're welcome, David.

Butler should try explaining her "queer theory" to Hamas -in person.


I’m sure the pious gentlemen of Hamas and Hizballah would have the highest possible regard for Ms Butler, what with her theories of gender-as-performance and her lofty status as “probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet.”

Or maybe they’d just crush her skull with rocks. Who can say?

Karen M

"social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left."

What? Butler thinks feminists should *support* Hamas? Because they're "progressive"?! She's gone from postmodernism to Newspeak in one sentence.



“Butler thinks feminists should *support* Hamas? Because they’re ‘progressive’?!”

If you watch the video of the Berkeley “teach-in” at which this “progressive” claim is made (link below, around 16:19), you’ll notice a remarkable lack of laughter and mockery. She appears to be taken quite seriously by those listening. So it’s perhaps unfair to single out Butler as *unusually* dishonest, ignorant or perverse. At least not by the standards of her colleagues and admirers.


This is what groupthink looks like, and this is the reward for those who take part.


'Feminists' like Valenti aren't interested in women who don't think like they do. They've hijacked feminism for themselves.

Spiny Norman

What's the point of being "progressive" if you can't be Stalin, at least in your own little corner of the room...


Shorter Valenti:

If you don't want the state to get even bigger you can't be a feminist. If you don't want higher taxes you can't be a feminist. If you don't believe the 'pay gap' is all about sexism you can't be a feminist. If you don't vote Democrat you can't be a feminist...

Who knew feminism had so many *rules*?


“Who knew feminism had so many *rules*?”

It is almost funny how presumptuous and doctrinaire Valenti is. She’s so very keen to defend her “real feminism” from all those beastly other kinds – the ones that are insufficiently grounded in creaky leftwing theory. If women aren’t engaged in “a structural analysis of patriarchal norms, power dynamics or systemic inequities,” they cannot wear the Amulet of Authentic Feminism™. Indeed, such women must be “disdainful of or apathetic to women’s rights.” (That’s “rights” as defined exclusively by Valenti and fellow Wearers of the Amulet™.)


The left to the Muppetists: we with our uniquely capable intellects wholeheartedly respect your right to self-governance, the strengthening of your culture, the remarkable contributions of your freedom-loving leaders, the way your beliefs promote peace and the progressive nature of your willingness to adopt gay and women's rights in your communities, so we may all rejoice in equality and fairness as we strive together for world liberation from darkness.

Muppetists to the left: Wahahaha!


Incidentally, there’s more on Marcotte and her admirers here:


Apparently men aren’t allowed to feel sad about abortion because of The Patriarchy. Sharp-eyed readers will note that Amanda assigns nefarious motives based solely on a person’s gender.

It’s the “progressive” way.


Almost everything she writes is full of hate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon Link