No, it's those nice non-shrill laydeez who follow on...
I am invariably irked by the blaming of 'feminists' when the issue is surely to do with the fact that feminism succeeded in opening certain doors.
Once those doors were open, the women who had been carefully dissociating themselves from those nasty shrill, etc, unfeminine creatures walked right through.
And it is an unfortunate corollary that those most able to take advantage of new opportunities were usually those with a certain amount of privilege on other axes (race, class, education) already.
This should not be taken to mean that 'feminism was all about getting MOAR for [X kind of privileged] women'.
Feminism has certainly had scotomata in its vision at any given historical moment.
But sometimes I think this is nothing compared to the weird astigmatism that afflicts people's ideas of what feminism in the past was actually about and what it actually did (like that thing that I have surely oft moaned about claiming that it was not about sex, marriage, motherhood, domestic life. Going back at least to C19th it was, too, about all those things. Maybe these are just more intractable and less soluble by legislation than access to education and employment opportunities).
This entry was originally posted at http://oursin.dreamwidth.org/1790631.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.