The article says that Ed's piece is "immediately remarkable for its misogynist lens: he charges 'white women who are almost totally in the dark about their privilege, many bolstering a blinkered neoliberal feminism' with assaulting the very foundation of literature (as he understands it)." How is this misogynist? Would it have been misogynist if directed at oblivious privileged white women bolstering a blinkered conservative anti-feminism? (Are women obligated to be feminists? I have never felt an urge to be a masculinist, which I guess would mean basing an ideology of some sort on my evolution-given gender. I have more respect for Almighty Evolution than that.) The question is, "Do such people exist or not, is Ed's taxonomy correct or not?" But even if it were misognist, so what? Next thing you know, they'll be banning misanthropes.
The article says that Ed's piece is "immediately remarkable for its misogynist lens: he charges 'white women who are almost totally in the dark about their privilege, many bolstering a blinkered neoliberal feminism' with assaulting the very foundation of literature (as he understands it)." How is this misogynist? Would it have been misogynist if directed at oblivious privileged white women bolstering a blinkered conservative anti-feminism? (Are women obligated to be feminists? I have never felt an urge to be a masculinist, which I guess would mean basing an ideology of some sort on my evolution-given gender. I have more respect for Almighty Evolution than that.)
ReplyDeleteThe question is, "Do such people exist or not, is Ed's taxonomy correct or not?"
But even if it were misognist, so what? Next thing you know, they'll be banning misanthropes.